Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Valentin Kulichenko <va...@gmail.com>]

Hi Denis,

Generally speaking, I believe that the schema-first approach natively
addresses the issue if duplicate fields in key and value objects, because
schema will be created for a cache, not for an object, as it happens now.
Basically, the schema will define whether there is a primary key or not,
and which fields are included in case there is one. Any API that we would
have must be compliant with this, so it becomes fairly easy to work with
data as with a set of records, rather than key-value pairs.

However, could you please elaborate on the relation between Ignite and ORM?
Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of Ignite (I haven't seen
one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the Ignite side to support
this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API which we already have.
Am I missing something?

-Val

On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:08 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:

> Val,
>
> I would propose adding another point to the motivations list which is
> related to the ORM frameworks such as Spring Data, Hibernate, Micronaut and
> many others.
>
> Presently, the storage engine requires to distinguish key objects from the
> value ones that complicate the usage of Ignite with those ORM frameworks
> (especially if a key object comprises several fields). More on this can be
> found here:
>
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
>
> It will be nice if the new schema-first approach allows us to work with a
> single entity object when it comes to the ORMs. With no need to split the
> entity into a key and value. Just want to be sure that the Ignite 3.0 has
> all the essential public APIs that would support the single-entity based
> approach.
>
> What do you think?
>
> -
> Denis
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:50 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Igniters,
> >
> > One of the big changes proposed for Ignite 3.0 is the so-called
> > "schema-first approach". To add more clarity, I've started writing the
> IEP
> > for this change:
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> >
> > Please take a look and let me know if there are any immediate thoughts,
> > suggestions, or objections.
> >
> > -Val
> >
>

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Valentin Kulichenko <va...@gmail.com>]

Alexey,

Thanks for adding more details to the IEP. I have a question regarding the
following:

*When an object is inserted into a table, we attempt to 'fit' object fields
to the schema columns. If a Java object has some extra fields which are not
present in the current schema, the schema is automatically updated to store
additional extra fields that are present in the object.*

Do you see this happening automatically? If so, it probably should be
optional, and even disabled by default. What do you think?

-Val

On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 10:44 AM Alexey Goncharuk <al...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Ivan,
>
> Thank you for reminding me about the dynamic schema. I've updated the IEP
> draft with more details on the approach, hopefully now it's more clear. I
> think we will be able to take the best from both fixed-schema and
> schemaless approaches.
>
> вт, 1 сент. 2020 г. в 14:31, Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Hi Val,
> >
> > Thank you for raising a discussion about this significant proposal!
> > The subject looks very significant and can greatly affect product
> > spirit and user experience.
> >
> > While I generally think that schema-first is a good idea, I would love
> > to see a thorough approaches comparison section. As we know different
> > databases treat data schema differently. And each way has benefits and
> > drawbacks. Additionally to schemeless and schema-first approaches I
> > remember talks about "dynamic schema". I believe that we should
> > describe clearly why do we prefer one approach over others.
> >
> > 2020-09-01 3:11 GMT+03:00, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > > Hi Denis,
> > >
> > > Generally speaking, I believe that the schema-first approach natively
> > > addresses the issue if duplicate fields in key and value objects,
> because
> > > schema will be created for a cache, not for an object, as it happens
> now.
> > > Basically, the schema will define whether there is a primary key or
> not,
> > > and which fields are included in case there is one. Any API that we
> would
> > > have must be compliant with this, so it becomes fairly easy to work
> with
> > > data as with a set of records, rather than key-value pairs.
> > >
> > > However, could you please elaborate on the relation between Ignite and
> > ORM?
> > > Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of Ignite (I haven't
> > seen
> > > one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the Ignite side to
> support
> > > this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API which we already
> have.
> > > Am I missing something?
> > >
> > > -Val
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:08 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Val,
> > >>
> > >> I would propose adding another point to the motivations list which is
> > >> related to the ORM frameworks such as Spring Data, Hibernate,
> Micronaut
> > >> and
> > >> many others.
> > >>
> > >> Presently, the storage engine requires to distinguish key objects from
> > >> the
> > >> value ones that complicate the usage of Ignite with those ORM
> frameworks
> > >> (especially if a key object comprises several fields). More on this
> can
> > >> be
> > >> found here:
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > >>
> > >> It will be nice if the new schema-first approach allows us to work
> with
> > a
> > >> single entity object when it comes to the ORMs. With no need to split
> > the
> > >> entity into a key and value. Just want to be sure that the Ignite 3.0
> > has
> > >> all the essential public APIs that would support the single-entity
> based
> > >> approach.
> > >>
> > >> What do you think?
> > >>
> > >> -
> > >> Denis
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:50 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > >> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Igniters,
> > >> >
> > >> > One of the big changes proposed for Ignite 3.0 is the so-called
> > >> > "schema-first approach". To add more clarity, I've started writing
> the
> > >> IEP
> > >> > for this change:
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > >> >
> > >> > Please take a look and let me know if there are any immediate
> > thoughts,
> > >> > suggestions, or objections.
> > >> >
> > >> > -Val
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Ivan Pavlukhin
> >
>

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Alexey Goncharuk <al...@gmail.com>]

Ivan,

Thank you for reminding me about the dynamic schema. I've updated the IEP
draft with more details on the approach, hopefully now it's more clear. I
think we will be able to take the best from both fixed-schema and
schemaless approaches.

вт, 1 сент. 2020 г. в 14:31, Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com>:

> Hi Val,
>
> Thank you for raising a discussion about this significant proposal!
> The subject looks very significant and can greatly affect product
> spirit and user experience.
>
> While I generally think that schema-first is a good idea, I would love
> to see a thorough approaches comparison section. As we know different
> databases treat data schema differently. And each way has benefits and
> drawbacks. Additionally to schemeless and schema-first approaches I
> remember talks about "dynamic schema". I believe that we should
> describe clearly why do we prefer one approach over others.
>
> 2020-09-01 3:11 GMT+03:00, Valentin Kulichenko <
> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > Hi Denis,
> >
> > Generally speaking, I believe that the schema-first approach natively
> > addresses the issue if duplicate fields in key and value objects, because
> > schema will be created for a cache, not for an object, as it happens now.
> > Basically, the schema will define whether there is a primary key or not,
> > and which fields are included in case there is one. Any API that we would
> > have must be compliant with this, so it becomes fairly easy to work with
> > data as with a set of records, rather than key-value pairs.
> >
> > However, could you please elaborate on the relation between Ignite and
> ORM?
> > Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of Ignite (I haven't
> seen
> > one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the Ignite side to support
> > this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API which we already have.
> > Am I missing something?
> >
> > -Val
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:08 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Val,
> >>
> >> I would propose adding another point to the motivations list which is
> >> related to the ORM frameworks such as Spring Data, Hibernate, Micronaut
> >> and
> >> many others.
> >>
> >> Presently, the storage engine requires to distinguish key objects from
> >> the
> >> value ones that complicate the usage of Ignite with those ORM frameworks
> >> (especially if a key object comprises several fields). More on this can
> >> be
> >> found here:
> >>
> >>
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> >>
> >> It will be nice if the new schema-first approach allows us to work with
> a
> >> single entity object when it comes to the ORMs. With no need to split
> the
> >> entity into a key and value. Just want to be sure that the Ignite 3.0
> has
> >> all the essential public APIs that would support the single-entity based
> >> approach.
> >>
> >> What do you think?
> >>
> >> -
> >> Denis
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:50 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> >> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Igniters,
> >> >
> >> > One of the big changes proposed for Ignite 3.0 is the so-called
> >> > "schema-first approach". To add more clarity, I've started writing the
> >> IEP
> >> > for this change:
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> >> >
> >> > Please take a look and let me know if there are any immediate
> thoughts,
> >> > suggestions, or objections.
> >> >
> >> > -Val
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
> Ivan Pavlukhin
>

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com>]

Hi Val,

Thank you for raising a discussion about this significant proposal!
The subject looks very significant and can greatly affect product
spirit and user experience.

While I generally think that schema-first is a good idea, I would love
to see a thorough approaches comparison section. As we know different
databases treat data schema differently. And each way has benefits and
drawbacks. Additionally to schemeless and schema-first approaches I
remember talks about "dynamic schema". I believe that we should
describe clearly why do we prefer one approach over others.

2020-09-01 3:11 GMT+03:00, Valentin Kulichenko <va...@gmail.com>:
> Hi Denis,
>
> Generally speaking, I believe that the schema-first approach natively
> addresses the issue if duplicate fields in key and value objects, because
> schema will be created for a cache, not for an object, as it happens now.
> Basically, the schema will define whether there is a primary key or not,
> and which fields are included in case there is one. Any API that we would
> have must be compliant with this, so it becomes fairly easy to work with
> data as with a set of records, rather than key-value pairs.
>
> However, could you please elaborate on the relation between Ignite and ORM?
> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of Ignite (I haven't seen
> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the Ignite side to support
> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API which we already have.
> Am I missing something?
>
> -Val
>
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:08 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Val,
>>
>> I would propose adding another point to the motivations list which is
>> related to the ORM frameworks such as Spring Data, Hibernate, Micronaut
>> and
>> many others.
>>
>> Presently, the storage engine requires to distinguish key objects from
>> the
>> value ones that complicate the usage of Ignite with those ORM frameworks
>> (especially if a key object comprises several fields). More on this can
>> be
>> found here:
>>
>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
>>
>> It will be nice if the new schema-first approach allows us to work with a
>> single entity object when it comes to the ORMs. With no need to split the
>> entity into a key and value. Just want to be sure that the Ignite 3.0 has
>> all the essential public APIs that would support the single-entity based
>> approach.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> -
>> Denis
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:50 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Igniters,
>> >
>> > One of the big changes proposed for Ignite 3.0 is the so-called
>> > "schema-first approach". To add more clarity, I've started writing the
>> IEP
>> > for this change:
>> >
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
>> >
>> > Please take a look and let me know if there are any immediate thoughts,
>> > suggestions, or objections.
>> >
>> > -Val
>> >
>>
>


-- 

Best regards,
Ivan Pavlukhin

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>]

Andrey,

Understood, thanks. Agree with the idea of creating a task for GraalVM
support. Just want to be sure there won't be any fundamental limitations in
the new serialization protocol that will make it hard or impossible to
generate native images. Probably, we should specify the requirements - at
least the native image support should exist for thin clients. Thick and
servers are optional. What do you think?

-
Denis


On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:28 AM Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Denis,
>
> Good point. Both serializers use reflection API.
> However, we will allow users to configure static schema along with 'strict'
> schema mode, we still need to validate user classes on client nodes against
> the latest schema in the grid  and reflection API is the only way to do it.
> One can find a few articles on the internet on how to enable reflection in
> GraalVM.
>
> I'll create a task for supporting GraalVM, and maybe someone who is
> familiar with GraalVM will suggest a solution or a proper workaround. Or
> I'll do it a bit later.
> If no workaround is found, we could allow users to write it's own
> serializer, but I don't think it is a good idea to expose any internal
> classes to the public.
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Andrey, thanks for the update,
> >
> > Does any of the serializers take into consideration the
> > native-image-generation feature of GraalVM?
> > https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> >
> > With the current binary marshaller, we can't even generate a native image
> > for the code using our thin client APIs.
> >
> > -
> > Denis
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Igniters,
> > >
> > > I'd like to continue discussion of IEP-54 (Schema-first approach).
> > >
> > > Hope everyone who is interested had a chance to get familiar with the
> > > proposal [1].
> > > Please, do not hesitate to ask questions and share your ideas.
> > >
> > > I've prepared a prototype of serializer [2] for the data layout
> described
> > > in the proposal.
> > > In prototy, I compared 2 approaches to (de)serialize objects, the first
> > one
> > > uses java reflection/unsafe API and similar to one we already use in
> > Ignite
> > > and the second one generates serializer for particular user class and
> > uses
> > > Janino library for compilation.
> > > Second one shows better results in benchmarks.
> > > I think we can go with it as default serializer and have
> reflection-based
> > > implementation as a fallback if someone will have issues with the first
> > > one.
> > > WDYT?
> > >
> > > There are a number of tasks under the umbrella ticket [3] waiting for
> the
> > > assignee.
> > >
> > > BTW, I'm going to create more tickets for schema manager modes
> > > implementation, but would like to clarify some details.
> > >
> > > I thought schemaManager on each node should held:
> > >   1. Local mapping of "schema version" <--> validated local key/value
> > > classes pair.
> > >   2. Cluster-wide schema changes history.
> > > On the client side. Before any key-value API operation we should
> > validate a
> > > schema for a given key-value pair.
> > > If there is no local-mapping exists for a given key-value pair or if a
> > > cluster wide schema has a more recent version then the key-value pair
> > > should be validated against the latest version and local mapping should
> > be
> > > updated/actualized.
> > > If an object doesn't fit to the latest schema then it depends on schema
> > > mode: either fail the operation ('strict' mode) or a new mapping should
> > be
> > > created and a new schema version should be propagated to the cluster.
> > >
> > > On the server side we usually have no key-value classes and we operate
> > with
> > > tuples.
> > > As schema change history is available and a tuple has schema version,
> > then
> > > it is possible to upgrade any received tuple to the last version
> without
> > > desialization.
> > > Thus we could allow nodes to send key-value pairs of previous versions
> > (if
> > > they didn't receive a schema update yet) without reverting schema
> changes
> > > made by a node with newer classes.
> > >
> > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the same?
> > >
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Folks,
> > > >
> > > > Please do not ignore history. We had a thread [1] with many bright
> > > > ideas. We can resume it.
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > >
> > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>:
> > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks for explaining.
> > > > >
> > > > > Agree that we need to have a separate discussion thread for the
> > "table"
> > > > and
> > > > > "cache" terms substitution. I'll appreciate it if you start the
> > thread
> > > > > sharing pointers to any relevant IEPs and reasoning behind the
> > > suggested
> > > > > change.
> > > > >
> > > > > -
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I guess the wording in the IEP is a little bit confusing. All it
> > means
> > > > is
> > > > >> that you should not create nested POJOs, but rather inline fields
> > > into a
> > > > >> single POJO that is mapped to a particular schema. In other words,
> > > > nested
> > > > >> POJOs are not supported.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Alex, is this correct? Please let me know if I'm missing
> something.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> As for the "cache" term, I agree that it is outdated, but I'm not
> > sure
> > > > >> what we can replace it with. "Table" is tightly associated with
> SQL,
> > > but
> > > > >> SQL is optional in our case. Do you want to create a separate
> > > discussion
> > > > >> about this?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> -Val
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Val,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I've checked the IEP again and have a few questions.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects and collections are not allowed as
> column
> > > > >>> values.
> > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should either be inlined into schema, or stored as
> > > BLOBs
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL code snippet showing how the inlining of
> > > POJOs
> > > > >>> is
> > > > >>> supposed to work?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Also, we keep using the terms "cache" and "table" throughout the
> > IEP.
> > > > Is
> > > > >>> it
> > > > >>> the right time to discuss an alternate name that would replace
> > those
> > > > >>> too?
> > > > >>> Personally, the "table" should stay and the "cache" should go
> > > > >>> considering
> > > > >>> that SQL is one of the primary APIs in Ignite and that DDL is
> > > supported
> > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> -
> > > > >>> Denis
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > >>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > I see your point. I agree that with the automatic updates we
> step
> > > > into
> > > > >>> the
> > > > >>> > schema-last territory.
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > Actually, if we support automatic evolution, we can as well
> > support
> > > > >>> > creating a cache without schema and inferring it from the first
> > > > >>> > insert.
> > > > >>> In
> > > > >>> > other words, we can have both "schema-first" and "schema-last"
> > > modes.
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you think?
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > -Val
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > >>> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > > >>> > >
> > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got your concern now. As it is mostly regarding
> > the
> > > > >>> > > terminology, I am absolutely fine with changing the name to
> > > > whatever
> > > > >>> fits
> > > > >>> > > the approach best. Dynamic or evolving schema sounds great. I
> > > will
> > > > >>> make
> > > > >>> > > corresponding changes to the IEP once we settle on the name.
> > > > >>> > >
> > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в 11:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <
> > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > > > >>> > >
> > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >>> > > > Thank you for your answer!
> > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >>> > > > My understanding is a little bit different. Yes, schema
> > > evolution
> > > > >>> > > > definitely should be possible. But I see a main difference
> in
> > > > "how
> > > > >>> > > > schema is updated". I treat a common SQL approach
> > schema-first.
> > > > >>> Schema
> > > > >>> > > > and data manipulation operations are clearly separated and
> it
> > > > >>> enables
> > > > >>> > > > interesting capabilities, e.g. preventing untended schema
> > > changes
> > > > >>> > > > by
> > > > >>> > > > mistaken data operations, restricting user permissions to
> > > change
> > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first means that schema exists in advance and all
> > the
> > > > >>> stored
> > > > >>> > > data
> > > > >>> > > > is compliant with it - that's exactly what is proposed.
> > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >>> > > > A schema-last approach mentioned in [1] also assumes that
> > > schema
> > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is inferred from data. Is not it more
> similar
> > to
> > > > >>> > > > the
> > > > >>> > > > proposing approach?
> > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >>> > > > And I would like to say, that my main concern so far is
> > mostly
> > > > >>> > > > about
> > > > >>> > > > terminology. And I suppose if it confuses me then others
> > might
> > > be
> > > > >>> > > > confused as well. My feeling is closer to "dynamic or
> liquid
> > or
> > > > >>> > > > may
> > > > >>> be
> > > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
> > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >>> >
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47 GMT+03:00, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > >>> > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an issue with that. Schema-first means that
> > > schema
> > > > >>> exists
> > > > >>> > > in
> > > > >>> > > > > advance and all the stored data is compliant with it -
> > that's
> > > > >>> exactly
> > > > >>> > > > what
> > > > >>> > > > > is proposed. There are no restrictions prohibiting
> changes
> > to
> > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:52 PM Ivan Pavlukhin <
> > > > >>> vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit confused with terminology. My
> > > understanding
> > > > >>> > conforms
> > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see part X Semi Structured Data). Can
> we
> > > > >>> > > > >> really
> > > > >>> > treat
> > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema" approach as a kind of "schema-first"?
> > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >>> > >
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <
> dmagda@apache.org
> > >:
> > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the relation
> > > between
> > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of
> > > Ignite
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the
> > Ignite
> > > > >>> side to
> > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API
> > which
> > > we
> > > > >>> > already
> > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes, if all the ORM integrations use
> Ignite
> > > SQL
> > > > >>> APIs
> > > > >>> > > > >> > internally, then they can easily translate an Entity
> > > object
> > > > >>> into
> > > > >>> > an
> > > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE statement that lists all the object's
> > > fields.
> > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data integration is already based on the Ignite
> > SQL
> > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > > > >>> > and
> > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > > > >>> > > > >> > to be improved once the schema-first approach is
> > > supported.
> > > > >>> That
> > > > >>> > > would
> > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of usability issues.
> > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> > I would revise the Hibernate integration as well
> during
> > > the
> > > > >>> Ignite
> > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say if it's used a lot but Spring Data is
> > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> > > > >>> > > > traction
> > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind, I'll loop you in as long as you've
> > > started
> > > > >>> > working
> > > > >>> > > > on
> > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support for Micornaut Data
> > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > > >>> >
> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > >>> > > > >> > came across some challenges. Just watch this
> discussion.
> > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > > > >>> > what
> > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite 3.0.
> > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 5:11 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > >>> > > > >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally speaking, I believe that the schema-first
> > > > approach
> > > > >>> > > natively
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the issue if duplicate fields in key and
> > value
> > > > >>> objects,
> > > > >>> > > > >> because
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be created for a cache, not for an
> object,
> > as
> > > > it
> > > > >>> > > happens
> > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the schema will define whether there is a
> > > > primary
> > > > >>> key
> > > > >>> > or
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which fields are included in case there is one.
> Any
> > > API
> > > > >>> that
> > > > >>> > we
> > > > >>> > > > >> would
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be compliant with this, so it becomes
> fairly
> > > easy
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > > > >>> > work
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a set of records, rather than key-value
> > > pairs.
> > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the relation
> > > between
> > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of
> > > Ignite
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the
> > Ignite
> > > > >>> side to
> > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API
> > which
> > > we
> > > > >>> > already
> > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:08 PM Denis Magda <
> > > > >>> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would propose adding another point to the
> > motivations
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> > > > >>> > > which
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to the ORM frameworks such as Spring Data,
> > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the storage engine requires to
> distinguish
> > > key
> > > > >>> > objects
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones that complicate the usage of Ignite with
> > > those
> > > > >>> ORM
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially if a key object comprises several
> > fields).
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> > > > >>> on
> > > > >>> > > this
> > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >>> > >
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice if the new schema-first approach
> > allows
> > > > us
> > > > >>> to
> > > > >>> > > work
> > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single entity object when it comes to the ORMs.
> With
> > no
> > > > >>> need to
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a key and value. Just want to be sure
> > that
> > > > the
> > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the essential public APIs that would support
> the
> > > > >>> > > single-entity
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you think?
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:50 PM Valentin
> Kulichenko <
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the big changes proposed for Ignite 3.0 is
> > the
> > > > >>> > so-called
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first approach". To add more clarity,
> I've
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> > > > >>> > > > writing
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this change:
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >>> > >
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a look and let me know if there are
> any
> > > > >>> immediate
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions, or objections.
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >>> > > > --
> > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >>> > >
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Ilya Kasnacheev <il...@gmail.com>]

Hello!

I'm not sure why you will need a schema definition API in Java if it's not
available with ignitectl?

After all, you can run SQL with Java as well. If we plan that every cache
is also a SQL table, why do we need the API being discussed? If it is
needed, how to rationalize that not all platforms support it?

Regards,
-- 
Ilya Kasnacheev


вт, 29 дек. 2020 г. в 13:11, Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>:

> Ilya,
>
> Ignitectl could use SQL query with ALTER command, right?
> I'm not sure we have to bother about it.
> Anyway, one can define hierarchical properties and implement parser which
> could create a schema using public API schema builders.
>
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 12:02 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello!
> >
> > Is there a way to define schema via ignitectl utility and its
> > hierarchical properties? How would it look like?
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Ilya Kasnacheev
> >
> >
> > пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 17:40, Andrey Mashenkov <
> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > >:
> >
> > > Hi, Igniters.
> > >
> > > We all know that the current QueryEntity API is not convenient and
> needs
> > to
> > > be reworked.
> > > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema configuration public API for
> > > Ignite 3.0.
> > >
> > > New schema configuration uses Builder pattern, which looks more
> > comfortable
> > > to use.
> > >
> > > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package with the API itself, and a
> > draft
> > > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
> > > and a test that demonstrates how the API could be used.
> > >
> > > Please note:
> > >
> > > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with static factory methods.
> > > * The implementation is decoupled and can be easily extracted to
> separate
> > > module if we decide to do so.
> > > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are missed, they will be added
> > lately
> > > in separate tickes.
> > > * Index configuration extends marker interface that makes possible to
> > > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
> > > Hopfully, we could add a persistent geo-indices support in future.
> > > * Supposedly, current table schema can be changed via builder-like
> > > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See 'TableModificationBuilder'
> > for
> > > details.
> > > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have 'toBuilder()' converter for that
> > > purpose as it is a Schema Manager responsibility to create mutator
> > objects
> > > from the current schema,
> > > but implementing the Schema manager is out of scope and will be
> designed
> > > within the next task.
> > > * Interfaces implementations are out of scope. I did not intend to
> merge
> > > them right now, but for test/demostration purposes.
> > >
> > > It is NOT the final version and some may be changed before the first
> > > release of course.
> > > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed with this approach or some
> > > issues should be resolved at first.
> > >
> > > Any thoughts or objections?
> > > Are interfaces good enough to be merged within the current ticket?
> > >
> > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <ju...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
> > > > 2. It requires adding new types to the internal representation,
> > protocol,
> > > > e.t.c.
> > > > 3. internal representation should be the same as we keep sign types.
> So
> > > it
> > > > will not requires more memory
> > > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such types for platforms which
> not
> > > > support unsigned types. For example, a user could derive -6 value in
> > Java
> > > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits perspective will be right). I
> > > think
> > > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such cases, especially it will be
> > bad
> > > > for unsigned long when we require returns BigInteger type.
> > > > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix for new types like a
> > '250u' -
> > > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
> > > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive comparison logic for
> indexes
> > > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for expressions. I think it not
> > > > possible for the current H2 engine and probably possible for the new
> > > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from anybody who involved in this
> > part
> > > >
> > > > WDYT?
> > > >
> > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > >
> > > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0: once we the actual
> type
> > > > > information, we can make proper runtime adjustments and conversions
> > to
> > > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will be just a bit more
> > expensive.
> > > > >
> > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupitsyn@apache.org
> >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
> > > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons and so on are broken
> > > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned this somewhere
> above.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document that SQL is not supported
> on
> > > > those
> > > > > > types,
> > > > > > end of story.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable request. I thought about
> this
> > > > when
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add these types right
> > away.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with .NET
> > and
> > > > C++
> > > > > :)
> > > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually works as expected, it needs
> > > some
> > > > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns are false):
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >    - It's true that equality check works properly, but for SQL
> > > range
> > > > > > >    queries it will break unless some special care is taken on
> > Java
> > > > > side:
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will be converted to -1,
> > > which
> > > > > will
> > > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we don't have unsigned types
> now,
> > I
> > > > > doubt
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > >    works.
> > > > > > >    - There is an obvious cross-platform data loss when
> > "intuitive"
> > > > type
> > > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8 corresponds to byte type in
> > .NET,
> > > > but
> > > > > to
> > > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have to use short type in
> Java,
> > > and
> > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >    will also need to take care of the range check during
> > > > > serialization).
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > >    think we can even allow to try to deserialize a value into
> > > > arbitrary
> > > > > > > type,
> > > > > > >    but throw an exception if the range is out of bounds.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
> > > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once all the details are
> > > settled
> > > > > > here?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't be treated correctly
> > for
> > > > now
> > > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think we could make "true" support for unsigned types, but
> > they
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
> > > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map uint64 to Java long
> > > > primitive,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > BigInteger only.
> > > > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64 to Java long, but treat
> > > > negative
> > > > > > > > values in a different way to preserve correct ordering.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > These limitations will affect only mixed environments when
> .Net
> > > and
> > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > used to access the data.
> > > > > > > > Will this solution address your issues?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with
> .NET
> > > and
> > > > > C++
> > > > > > :)
> > > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as cache keys and values,
> as
> > > > fields
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > properties,
> > > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y clauses) - it works
> > > > > > transparently
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > the users.
> > > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats those values as
> > > corresponding
> > > > > > signed
> > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in some cases only because
> > > there
> > > > > are
> > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> > > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very simple change to the
> > protocol
> > > -
> > > > > add
> > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as signed counterparts.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise representation is
> > the
> > > > > same)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a uByte field and map
> it
> > > to
> > > > > > > 'uint8'
> > > > > > > > > > column.
> > > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to "250" and put the object
> > > into a
> > > > > > > table,
> > > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a single byte 'int8'
> column.
> > > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it to directly the Java
> > > > object
> > > > > > > field
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8 type to Java 'short'
> > type
> > > > > > > > > > because the one expected to see "250" as a value which
> > > doesn't
> > > > > fit
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > signed type.
> > > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a BigInteger field in Java.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat column value as Java 'byte'
> as
> > > is,
> > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a negative value, so it should
> > be
> > > > cast
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > short
> > > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger for uint64)
> > > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will require a different
> > comparator.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a good idea.
> > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the simple approach I
> > > described?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing range for unsigned types
> > > then
> > > > we
> > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > > add a
> > > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on schema level (like
> > > > > nullability
> > > > > > > > flag)
> > > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types in storage.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate storage type-system and
> > > binary
> > > > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of type will match 1 to 1
> > with
> > > > > > storage
> > > > > > > > > > (native)
> > > > > > > > > > > > type.
> > > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either have a separate type id
> or
> > > > treat
> > > > > > > > > > serialized
> > > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed or unsigned flag).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever foresee the consequences
> of
> > > > using
> > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned types perfectly works
> > > with
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > database,
> > > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite successor confession with
> our
> > > > > > "native"
> > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> > > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he can use the power of
> Ignite
> > > > > Compute
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either fail to use his
> unsigned
> > > data
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > > due
> > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due to natural Java type
> system
> > > > > > > limitations
> > > > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively supported types with possible
> > > value
> > > > > > > ranges
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
> > > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is what trade-off we found
> > > > acceptable:
> > > > > > > > > narrowing
> > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use types of wider range on
> > > systems
> > > > > like
> > > > > > > > Java.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor Sapego <
> > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so hard to implement
> > > > comparison
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not seem to be a big
> > issue
> > > > > from
> > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned types from Java - I
> > think,
> > > > if
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to interact with it from
> > Java
> > > he
> > > > > > knows
> > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from platforms where they
> > have
> > > > > native
> > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > widely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where users currently
> have
> > > to
> > > > > > make a
> > > > > > > > > > manual
> > > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > > > casting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using unsigned types when they
> use
> > > > > Ignite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for those types
> (basically,
> > > just
> > > > > add
> > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise
> > representation
> > > > is
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > same)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned integers, so we
> can
> > > > > simply
> > > > > > > say
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative comparison is not
> supported
> > > in
> > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > (equality
> > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM Andrey Mashenkov
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have i8 or int8 instead of
> > > > > Integer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't address the issue.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types should be portable
> across
> > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > systems
> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type support.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is that unsigned types
> cover
> > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > ranges.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to introduce a uLong.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big deal to add uLong
> type
> > > > > support
> > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > storage
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and then use it in e.g.
> > > .Net
> > > > > > only.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support it in e.g. Java?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range is about (2^-63
> ..
> > > > 2^63)
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > range
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to restrict range to (0
> ..
> > > > > 2^63).
> > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but doesn't look like
> a
> > > > 'real'
> > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse when the user will use
> > > > uByte,
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > limitation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map unsigned types to a
> > > type
> > > > of
> > > > > > > wider
> > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative values. E.g. uLong to
> > > > > > BigInteger.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive Java type for Long
> > here.
> > > > > > > However,
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8 bytes, but have a
> > > > special
> > > > > > > > > comparator
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid unwanted
> deserialization.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Pavel Tupitsyn
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of "long, short, byte"
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style, which is concise and
> > > > > > unambiguous:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM Igor Sapego <
> > > > > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support that. Also, if we are
> > aiming
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger platform-independance,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may want to support
> > > > bit-notation
> > > > > > > > (int32,
> > > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a different type on
> different
> > > > > > platforms
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often when using ODBC for
> > > example).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM Pavel
> > Tupitsyn
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should support unsigned data
> > > types:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have them, but many other
> > > > languages
> > > > > > do,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing number of thin
> clients
> > > > this
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in current Ignite.NET
> > > > implementation
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain when it comes to
> > > > > metadata,
> > > > > > > > binary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to deserialize int as uint
> when
> > > you
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > class,
> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM Andrey
> > > > > Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both serializers use
> > reflection
> > > > > API.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will allow users to
> configure
> > > > > static
> > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > along
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still need to validate
> > user
> > > > > > classes
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > client
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in the grid  and
> > > reflection
> > > > > API
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few articles on the
> > internet
> > > > on
> > > > > > how
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task for supporting
> > GraalVM,
> > > > and
> > > > > > > maybe
> > > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM will suggest a
> > > solution
> > > > > or
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is found, we could
> allow
> > > > users
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I don't think it is a
> > good
> > > > idea
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > expose
> > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the public.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM Denis
> > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the update,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the serializers take into
> > > > > > > consideration
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native-image-generation feature of
> > > GraalVM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current binary marshaller,
> we
> > > > can't
> > > > > > even
> > > > > > > > > > > generate
> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using our thin client
> > APIs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM
> Andrey
> > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to continue discussion of
> > > IEP-54
> > > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who is interested
> had a
> > > > > chance
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to ask
> > > questions
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > share
> > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a prototype of
> > serializer
> > > > [2]
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I compared 2 approaches
> > to
> > > > > > > > > (de)serialize
> > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java reflection/unsafe API and
> > > > similar
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second one generates
> > serializer
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library for compilation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows better results in
> > > > > > benchmarks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go with it as
> default
> > > > > > serializer
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation as a fallback if
> > someone
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of tasks under
> the
> > > > > > umbrella
> > > > > > > > > ticket
> > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to create more
> tickets
> > > for
> > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > manager
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation, but would like to
> > > clarify
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > details.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought schemaManager on each
> node
> > > > should
> > > > > > > held:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping of "schema
> > version"
> > > > <-->
> > > > > > > > > validated
> > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide schema changes
> > > history.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client side. Before any
> > > key-value
> > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > operation
> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a given key-value pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no local-mapping exists
> > > for a
> > > > > > given
> > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema has a more
> recent
> > > > > version
> > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be validated against the
> > latest
> > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object doesn't fit to the
> > latest
> > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > depends
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail the operation
> > > ('strict'
> > > > > > mode)
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a new schema version
> > should
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > > propagated
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server side we usually have
> no
> > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > classes
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change history is
> available
> > > > and a
> > > > > > > tuple
> > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to upgrade any
> > received
> > > > > tuple
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > last
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow nodes to send
> > > > key-value
> > > > > > > pairs
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't receive a schema update
> > > yet)
> > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > reverting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node with newer classes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the
> > same?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM
> Ivan
> > > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not ignore history. We
> > had
> > > a
> > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can resume it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00, Denis
> > > Magda
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks for
> > > > > explaining.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we need to have a
> > > separate
> > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms substitution.
> I'll
> > > > > > appreciate
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing pointers to any
> relevant
> > > IEPs
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > reasoning
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM
> > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the wording in the IEP
> > is
> > > a
> > > > > > little
> > > > > > > > bit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you should not create
> > nested
> > > > > POJOs,
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO that is mapped to
> a
> > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this correct? Please
> > let
> > > me
> > > > > > know
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the "cache" term, I
> agree
> > > > that
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can replace it with.
> > > "Table"
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > tightly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional in our case.
> Do
> > > you
> > > > > want
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > create a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM
> > > Denis
> > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked the IEP again
> and
> > > > have a
> > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > > questions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects and
> > > > > > collections
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should either
> be
> > > > > inlined
> > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > schema,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL code
> > > > snippet
> > > > > > > > showing
> > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to work?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep using the terms
> > > > "cache"
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right time to discuss an
> > > > > alternate
> > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the "table"
> should
> > > stay
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one of the
> primary
> > > APIs
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26
> PM
> > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your point. I agree
> > that
> > > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > automatic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last territory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we support
> > > automatic
> > > > > > > > > evolution,
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a cache without
> > schema
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > inferring
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other words, we can have
> both
> > > > > > > > > "schema-first"
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59
> > AM
> > > > > Alexey
> > > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got your
> > concern
> > > > > now.
> > > > > > As
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > terminology, I am
> > absolutely
> > > > fine
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the approach best.
> Dynamic
> > or
> > > > > > > evolving
> > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > corresponding changes to
> > the
> > > > IEP
> > > > > > once
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > settle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в
> > 11:33,
> > > > Ivan
> > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for your
> > answer!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My understanding is a
> > > little
> > > > > bit
> > > > > > > > > > different.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > definitely should be
> > > > possible.
> > > > > > But
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is updated". I
> > > treat a
> > > > > > > common
> > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data manipulation
> > > > > operations
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > clearly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > interesting
> capabilities,
> > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > preventing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data
> operations,
> > > > > > > restricting
> > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first means
> that
> > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > exists
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is compliant with it -
> > > that's
> > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last approach
> > > > > mentioned
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is
> > inferred
> > > > from
> > > > > > > data.
> > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing approach?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would like to
> say,
> > > that
> > > > > my
> > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > terminology. And I
> > suppose
> > > if
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > confuses
> > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused as well. My
> > > feeling
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > closer
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47
> > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an issue
> > with
> > > > > that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance and all the
> > > stored
> > > > > data
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > compliant
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is proposed. There
> are
> > no
> > > > > > > > > restrictions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020
> at
> > > 9:52
> > > > > PM
> > > > > > > Ivan
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit
> > > confused
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > My
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see
> > > part
> > > > X
> > > > > > Semi
> > > > > > > > > > > > Structured
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema"
> > > > approach
> > > > > > as a
> > > > > > > > > kind
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53
> > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could
> you
> > > > please
> > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use
> case
> > > for
> > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If
> so,
> > > > what
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
> > > > > understanding,
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing
> > > something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes,
> if
> > > all
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > ORM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > internally, then
> > they
> > > > can
> > > > > > > easily
> > > > > > > > > > > > translate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE
> > > statement
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > lists
> > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data
> > > integration
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be improved
> once
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of
> > > usability
> > > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would revise the
> > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say
> if
> > > it's
> > > > > > used
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind,
> > I'll
> > > > > loop
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > long
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support for
> > > > > Micornaut
> > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came across some
> > > > > challenges.
> > > > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > > > > > watch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite
> > 3.0.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31,
> 2020
> > > at
> > > > > 5:11
> > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally
> > speaking, I
> > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the
> issue
> > > if
> > > > > > > > duplicate
> > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be
> > > created
> > > > > for
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > cache,
> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the
> > schema
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > > define
> > > > > > > > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which fields
> > are
> > > > > > included
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be
> > > compliant
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > this,
> > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a
> set
> > of
> > > > > > > records,
> > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could
> you
> > > > please
> > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use
> case
> > > for
> > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If
> so,
> > > > what
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
> > > > > understanding,
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing
> > > something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31,
> > 2020
> > > at
> > > > > > 2:08
> > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would propose
> > > > adding
> > > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > > > point
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to the
> > ORM
> > > > > > > frameworks
> > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the
> > > > storage
> > > > > > > engine
> > > > > > > > > > > > requires
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones that
> > > > > > complicate
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially if
> a
> > > key
> > > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > > comprises
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice
> > if
> > > > the
> > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single entity
> > > object
> > > > > when
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > comes
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a
> key
> > > and
> > > > > > > value.
> > > > > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the
> essential
> > > > > public
> > > > > > > APIs
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > single-entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you
> > think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28,
> > > 2020
> > > > at
> > > > > > > 3:50
> > > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the
> big
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > proposed
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first
> > > > > > approach".
> > > > > > > To
> > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this
> > change:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a
> > > look
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > let
> > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions,
> or
> > > > > > > objections.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>]

Ilya,

Ignitectl could use SQL query with ALTER command, right?
I'm not sure we have to bother about it.
Anyway, one can define hierarchical properties and implement parser which
could create a schema using public API schema builders.

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 12:02 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <il...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello!
>
> Is there a way to define schema via ignitectl utility and its
> hierarchical properties? How would it look like?
>
> Regards,
> --
> Ilya Kasnacheev
>
>
> пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 17:40, Andrey Mashenkov <andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> >:
>
> > Hi, Igniters.
> >
> > We all know that the current QueryEntity API is not convenient and needs
> to
> > be reworked.
> > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema configuration public API for
> > Ignite 3.0.
> >
> > New schema configuration uses Builder pattern, which looks more
> comfortable
> > to use.
> >
> > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package with the API itself, and a
> draft
> > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
> > and a test that demonstrates how the API could be used.
> >
> > Please note:
> >
> > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with static factory methods.
> > * The implementation is decoupled and can be easily extracted to separate
> > module if we decide to do so.
> > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are missed, they will be added
> lately
> > in separate tickes.
> > * Index configuration extends marker interface that makes possible to
> > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
> > Hopfully, we could add a persistent geo-indices support in future.
> > * Supposedly, current table schema can be changed via builder-like
> > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See 'TableModificationBuilder'
> for
> > details.
> > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have 'toBuilder()' converter for that
> > purpose as it is a Schema Manager responsibility to create mutator
> objects
> > from the current schema,
> > but implementing the Schema manager is out of scope and will be designed
> > within the next task.
> > * Interfaces implementations are out of scope. I did not intend to merge
> > them right now, but for test/demostration purposes.
> >
> > It is NOT the final version and some may be changed before the first
> > release of course.
> > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed with this approach or some
> > issues should be resolved at first.
> >
> > Any thoughts or objections?
> > Are interfaces good enough to be merged within the current ticket?
> >
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <ju...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types:
> > >
> > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
> > > 2. It requires adding new types to the internal representation,
> protocol,
> > > e.t.c.
> > > 3. internal representation should be the same as we keep sign types. So
> > it
> > > will not requires more memory
> > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such types for platforms which not
> > > support unsigned types. For example, a user could derive -6 value in
> Java
> > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits perspective will be right). I
> > think
> > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such cases, especially it will be
> bad
> > > for unsigned long when we require returns BigInteger type.
> > > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix for new types like a
> '250u' -
> > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
> > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive comparison logic for indexes
> > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for expressions. I think it not
> > > possible for the current H2 engine and probably possible for the new
> > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from anybody who involved in this
> part
> > >
> > > WDYT?
> > >
> > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > >
> > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0: once we the actual type
> > > > information, we can make proper runtime adjustments and conversions
> to
> > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will be just a bit more
> expensive.
> > > >
> > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
> > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons and so on are broken
> > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned this somewhere above.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document that SQL is not supported on
> > > those
> > > > > types,
> > > > > end of story.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable request. I thought about this
> > > when
> > > > I
> > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add these types right
> away.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with .NET
> and
> > > C++
> > > > :)
> > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually works as expected, it needs
> > some
> > > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns are false):
> > > > > >
> > > > > >    - It's true that equality check works properly, but for SQL
> > range
> > > > > >    queries it will break unless some special care is taken on
> Java
> > > > side:
> > > > > > for
> > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will be converted to -1,
> > which
> > > > will
> > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we don't have unsigned types now,
> I
> > > > doubt
> > > > > it
> > > > > >    works.
> > > > > >    - There is an obvious cross-platform data loss when
> "intuitive"
> > > type
> > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8 corresponds to byte type in
> .NET,
> > > but
> > > > to
> > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have to use short type in Java,
> > and
> > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >    will also need to take care of the range check during
> > > > serialization).
> > > > > I
> > > > > >    think we can even allow to try to deserialize a value into
> > > arbitrary
> > > > > > type,
> > > > > >    but throw an exception if the range is out of bounds.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
> > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once all the details are
> > settled
> > > > > here?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't be treated correctly
> for
> > > now
> > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think we could make "true" support for unsigned types, but
> they
> > > > will
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
> > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map uint64 to Java long
> > > primitive,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > BigInteger only.
> > > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64 to Java long, but treat
> > > negative
> > > > > > > values in a different way to preserve correct ordering.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > These limitations will affect only mixed environments when .Net
> > and
> > > > > Java
> > > > > > > used to access the data.
> > > > > > > Will this solution address your issues?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with .NET
> > and
> > > > C++
> > > > > :)
> > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as cache keys and values, as
> > > fields
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > properties,
> > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y clauses) - it works
> > > > > transparently
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > the users.
> > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats those values as
> > corresponding
> > > > > signed
> > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in some cases only because
> > there
> > > > are
> > > > > no
> > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very simple change to the
> protocol
> > -
> > > > add
> > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as signed counterparts.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise representation is
> the
> > > > same)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a uByte field and map it
> > to
> > > > > > 'uint8'
> > > > > > > > > column.
> > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to "250" and put the object
> > into a
> > > > > > table,
> > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a single byte 'int8' column.
> > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it to directly the Java
> > > object
> > > > > > field
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8 type to Java 'short'
> type
> > > > > > > > > because the one expected to see "250" as a value which
> > doesn't
> > > > fit
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > signed type.
> > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a BigInteger field in Java.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat column value as Java 'byte' as
> > is,
> > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a negative value, so it should
> be
> > > cast
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > short
> > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger for uint64)
> > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will require a different
> comparator.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a good idea.
> > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the simple approach I
> > described?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing range for unsigned types
> > then
> > > we
> > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > add a
> > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on schema level (like
> > > > nullability
> > > > > > > flag)
> > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types in storage.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate storage type-system and
> > binary
> > > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of type will match 1 to 1
> with
> > > > > storage
> > > > > > > > > (native)
> > > > > > > > > > > type.
> > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either have a separate type id or
> > > treat
> > > > > > > > > serialized
> > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed or unsigned flag).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever foresee the consequences of
> > > using
> > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned types perfectly works
> > with
> > > > some
> > > > > > > > > database,
> > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite successor confession with our
> > > > > "native"
> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he can use the power of Ignite
> > > > Compute
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either fail to use his unsigned
> > data
> > > > on
> > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > due
> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due to natural Java type system
> > > > > > limitations
> > > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively supported types with possible
> > value
> > > > > > ranges
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
> > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is what trade-off we found
> > > acceptable:
> > > > > > > > narrowing
> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use types of wider range on
> > systems
> > > > like
> > > > > > > Java.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor Sapego <
> > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so hard to implement
> > > comparison
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not seem to be a big
> issue
> > > > from
> > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned types from Java - I
> think,
> > > if
> > > > a
> > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to interact with it from
> Java
> > he
> > > > > knows
> > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from platforms where they
> have
> > > > native
> > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > widely
> > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where users currently have
> > to
> > > > > make a
> > > > > > > > > manual
> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > > casting
> > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using unsigned types when they use
> > > > Ignite.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for those types (basically,
> > just
> > > > add
> > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise
> representation
> > > is
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > same)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned integers, so we can
> > > > simply
> > > > > > say
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative comparison is not supported
> > in
> > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > (equality
> > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have i8 or int8 instead of
> > > > Integer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't address the issue.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types should be portable across
> > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > systems
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type support.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is that unsigned types cover
> > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > ranges.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to introduce a uLong.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big deal to add uLong type
> > > > support
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > storage
> > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and then use it in e.g.
> > .Net
> > > > > only.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support it in e.g. Java?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range is about (2^-63 ..
> > > 2^63)
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > range
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to restrict range to (0 ..
> > > > 2^63).
> > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but doesn't look like a
> > > 'real'
> > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse when the user will use
> > > uByte,
> > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > limitation
> > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map unsigned types to a
> > type
> > > of
> > > > > > wider
> > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative values. E.g. uLong to
> > > > > BigInteger.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive Java type for Long
> here.
> > > > > > However,
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8 bytes, but have a
> > > special
> > > > > > > > comparator
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid unwanted deserialization.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of "long, short, byte" in
> > the
> > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style, which is concise and
> > > > > unambiguous:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM Igor Sapego <
> > > > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support that. Also, if we are
> aiming
> > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger platform-independance,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may want to support
> > > bit-notation
> > > > > > > (int32,
> > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a different type on different
> > > > > platforms
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often when using ODBC for
> > example).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM Pavel
> Tupitsyn
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should support unsigned data
> > types:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have them, but many other
> > > languages
> > > > > do,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing number of thin clients
> > > this
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in current Ignite.NET
> > > implementation
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain when it comes to
> > > > metadata,
> > > > > > > binary
> > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to deserialize int as uint when
> > you
> > > > > have
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > class,
> > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM Andrey
> > > > Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both serializers use
> reflection
> > > > API.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will allow users to configure
> > > > static
> > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > along
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still need to validate
> user
> > > > > classes
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > client
> > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in the grid  and
> > reflection
> > > > API
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few articles on the
> internet
> > > on
> > > > > how
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task for supporting
> GraalVM,
> > > and
> > > > > > maybe
> > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM will suggest a
> > solution
> > > > or
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is found, we could allow
> > > users
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I don't think it is a
> good
> > > idea
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > expose
> > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the public.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM Denis
> > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the update,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the serializers take into
> > > > > > consideration
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native-image-generation feature of
> > GraalVM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current binary marshaller, we
> > > can't
> > > > > even
> > > > > > > > > > generate
> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using our thin client
> APIs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM Andrey
> > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to continue discussion of
> > IEP-54
> > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who is interested had a
> > > > chance
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to ask
> > questions
> > > > and
> > > > > > > share
> > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a prototype of
> serializer
> > > [2]
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I compared 2 approaches
> to
> > > > > > > > (de)serialize
> > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java reflection/unsafe API and
> > > similar
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second one generates
> serializer
> > > for
> > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library for compilation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows better results in
> > > > > benchmarks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go with it as default
> > > > > serializer
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation as a fallback if
> someone
> > > > will
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of tasks under the
> > > > > umbrella
> > > > > > > > ticket
> > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to create more tickets
> > for
> > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > manager
> > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation, but would like to
> > clarify
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > details.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought schemaManager on each node
> > > should
> > > > > > held:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping of "schema
> version"
> > > <-->
> > > > > > > > validated
> > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide schema changes
> > history.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client side. Before any
> > key-value
> > > > API
> > > > > > > > > operation
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a given key-value pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no local-mapping exists
> > for a
> > > > > given
> > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema has a more recent
> > > > version
> > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be validated against the
> latest
> > > > > version
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object doesn't fit to the
> latest
> > > > schema
> > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > depends
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail the operation
> > ('strict'
> > > > > mode)
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a new schema version
> should
> > > be
> > > > > > > > propagated
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server side we usually have no
> > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > classes
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change history is available
> > > and a
> > > > > > tuple
> > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to upgrade any
> received
> > > > tuple
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > last
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow nodes to send
> > > key-value
> > > > > > pairs
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't receive a schema update
> > yet)
> > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > reverting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node with newer classes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the
> same?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Ivan
> > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not ignore history. We
> had
> > a
> > > > > thread
> > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can resume it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00, Denis
> > Magda
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks for
> > > > explaining.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we need to have a
> > separate
> > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms substitution. I'll
> > > > > appreciate
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing pointers to any relevant
> > IEPs
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > reasoning
> > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM
> > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the wording in the IEP
> is
> > a
> > > > > little
> > > > > > > bit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you should not create
> nested
> > > > POJOs,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO that is mapped to a
> > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this correct? Please
> let
> > me
> > > > > know
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the "cache" term, I agree
> > > that
> > > > it
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can replace it with.
> > "Table"
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > tightly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional in our case. Do
> > you
> > > > want
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > create a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM
> > Denis
> > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked the IEP again and
> > > have a
> > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > questions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects and
> > > > > collections
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should either be
> > > > inlined
> > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > schema,
> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL code
> > > snippet
> > > > > > > showing
> > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to work?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep using the terms
> > > "cache"
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right time to discuss an
> > > > alternate
> > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the "table" should
> > stay
> > > > and
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one of the primary
> > APIs
> > > > in
> > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM
> > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your point. I agree
> that
> > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > automatic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last territory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we support
> > automatic
> > > > > > > > evolution,
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a cache without
> schema
> > > and
> > > > > > > > inferring
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other words, we can have both
> > > > > > > > "schema-first"
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59
> AM
> > > > Alexey
> > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got your
> concern
> > > > now.
> > > > > As
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > terminology, I am
> absolutely
> > > fine
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the approach best. Dynamic
> or
> > > > > > evolving
> > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > corresponding changes to
> the
> > > IEP
> > > > > once
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > settle
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в
> 11:33,
> > > Ivan
> > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for your
> answer!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My understanding is a
> > little
> > > > bit
> > > > > > > > > different.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > definitely should be
> > > possible.
> > > > > But
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is updated". I
> > treat a
> > > > > > common
> > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data manipulation
> > > > operations
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > clearly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > interesting capabilities,
> > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > preventing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data operations,
> > > > > > restricting
> > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first means that
> > > > schema
> > > > > > > exists
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is compliant with it -
> > that's
> > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last approach
> > > > mentioned
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is
> inferred
> > > from
> > > > > > data.
> > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing approach?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would like to say,
> > that
> > > > my
> > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > terminology. And I
> suppose
> > if
> > > > it
> > > > > > > > confuses
> > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused as well. My
> > feeling
> > > is
> > > > > > > closer
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47
> GMT+03:00,
> > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an issue
> with
> > > > that.
> > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance and all the
> > stored
> > > > data
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > compliant
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is proposed. There are
> no
> > > > > > > > restrictions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at
> > 9:52
> > > > PM
> > > > > > Ivan
> > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit
> > confused
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > My
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see
> > part
> > > X
> > > > > Semi
> > > > > > > > > > > Structured
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema"
> > > approach
> > > > > as a
> > > > > > > > kind
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53
> > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you
> > > please
> > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case
> > for
> > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so,
> > > what
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
> > > > understanding,
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing
> > something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes, if
> > all
> > > > the
> > > > > > ORM
> > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > internally, then
> they
> > > can
> > > > > > easily
> > > > > > > > > > > translate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE
> > statement
> > > > that
> > > > > > > lists
> > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data
> > integration
> > > is
> > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > based
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be improved once
> > the
> > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of
> > usability
> > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would revise the
> > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say if
> > it's
> > > > > used
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind,
> I'll
> > > > loop
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > long
> > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support for
> > > > Micornaut
> > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came across some
> > > > challenges.
> > > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > > > > watch
> > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite
> 3.0.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020
> > at
> > > > 5:11
> > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally
> speaking, I
> > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the issue
> > if
> > > > > > > duplicate
> > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be
> > created
> > > > for
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > cache,
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the
> schema
> > > > will
> > > > > > > define
> > > > > > > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which fields
> are
> > > > > included
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be
> > compliant
> > > > with
> > > > > > > this,
> > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a set
> of
> > > > > > records,
> > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you
> > > please
> > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case
> > for
> > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so,
> > > what
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
> > > > understanding,
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing
> > something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31,
> 2020
> > at
> > > > > 2:08
> > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would propose
> > > adding
> > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > > point
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to the
> ORM
> > > > > > frameworks
> > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the
> > > storage
> > > > > > engine
> > > > > > > > > > > requires
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones that
> > > > > complicate
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially if a
> > key
> > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > comprises
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice
> if
> > > the
> > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single entity
> > object
> > > > when
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > comes
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a key
> > and
> > > > > > value.
> > > > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the essential
> > > > public
> > > > > > APIs
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > single-entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you
> think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28,
> > 2020
> > > at
> > > > > > 3:50
> > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the big
> > > > changes
> > > > > > > > proposed
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first
> > > > > approach".
> > > > > > To
> > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this
> change:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a
> > look
> > > > and
> > > > > > let
> > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions, or
> > > > > > objections.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >
>


-- 
Best regards,
Andrey V. Mashenkov

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Ilya Kasnacheev <il...@gmail.com>]

Hello!

Is there a way to define schema via ignitectl utility and its
hierarchical properties? How would it look like?

Regards,
-- 
Ilya Kasnacheev


пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 17:40, Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>:

> Hi, Igniters.
>
> We all know that the current QueryEntity API is not convenient and needs to
> be reworked.
> So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema configuration public API for
> Ignite 3.0.
>
> New schema configuration uses Builder pattern, which looks more comfortable
> to use.
>
> In the PR you will find a 'schema' package with the API itself, and a draft
> implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
> and a test that demonstrates how the API could be used.
>
> Please note:
>
> * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with static factory methods.
> * The implementation is decoupled and can be easily extracted to separate
> module if we decide to do so.
> * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are missed, they will be added lately
> in separate tickes.
> * Index configuration extends marker interface that makes possible to
> implement indexes of new types in plugins.
> Hopfully, we could add a persistent geo-indices support in future.
> * Supposedly, current table schema can be changed via builder-like
> structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See 'TableModificationBuilder' for
> details.
> I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have 'toBuilder()' converter for that
> purpose as it is a Schema Manager responsibility to create mutator objects
> from the current schema,
> but implementing the Schema manager is out of scope and will be designed
> within the next task.
> * Interfaces implementations are out of scope. I did not intend to merge
> them right now, but for test/demostration purposes.
>
> It is NOT the final version and some may be changed before the first
> release of course.
> For now, we have to agree if we can proceed with this approach or some
> issues should be resolved at first.
>
> Any thoughts or objections?
> Are interfaces good enough to be merged within the current ticket?
>
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types:
> >
> > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
> > 2. It requires adding new types to the internal representation, protocol,
> > e.t.c.
> > 3. internal representation should be the same as we keep sign types. So
> it
> > will not requires more memory
> > 4. User should be aware of specifics such types for platforms which not
> > support unsigned types. For example, a user could derive -6 value in Java
> > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits perspective will be right). I
> think
> > We shouldn't use more wide type for such cases, especially it will be bad
> > for unsigned long when we require returns BigInteger type.
> > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix for new types like a '250u' -
> > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
> > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive comparison logic for indexes
> > 7. It requires new comparison logic for expressions. I think it not
> > possible for the current H2 engine and probably possible for the new
> > Calcite engine. Need clarification from anybody who involved in this part
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey Goncharuk <
> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > >:
> >
> > > Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0: once we the actual type
> > > information, we can make proper runtime adjustments and conversions to
> > > treat those values as unsigned - it will be just a bit more expensive.
> > >
> > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > > > SQL range queries it will break
> > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
> > > >
> > > > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons and so on are broken
> > > > for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned this somewhere above.
> > > >
> > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document that SQL is not supported on
> > those
> > > > types,
> > > > end of story.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable request. I thought about this
> > when
> > > I
> > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add these types right away.
> > > > >
> > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with .NET and
> > C++
> > > :)
> > > > > I have some doubts that it actually works as expected, it needs
> some
> > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns are false):
> > > > >
> > > > >    - It's true that equality check works properly, but for SQL
> range
> > > > >    queries it will break unless some special care is taken on Java
> > > side:
> > > > > for
> > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will be converted to -1,
> which
> > > will
> > > > >    break the comparison. Since we don't have unsigned types now, I
> > > doubt
> > > > it
> > > > >    works.
> > > > >    - There is an obvious cross-platform data loss when "intuitive"
> > type
> > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8 corresponds to byte type in .NET,
> > but
> > > to
> > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have to use short type in Java,
> and
> > > > > Ignite
> > > > >    will also need to take care of the range check during
> > > serialization).
> > > > I
> > > > >    think we can even allow to try to deserialize a value into
> > arbitrary
> > > > > type,
> > > > >    but throw an exception if the range is out of bounds.
> > > > >
> > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
> > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once all the details are
> settled
> > > > here?
> > > > >
> > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't be treated correctly for
> > now
> > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think we could make "true" support for unsigned types, but they
> > > will
> > > > > have
> > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
> > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map uint64 to Java long
> > primitive,
> > > > but
> > > > > to
> > > > > > BigInteger only.
> > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64 to Java long, but treat
> > negative
> > > > > > values in a different way to preserve correct ordering.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > These limitations will affect only mixed environments when .Net
> and
> > > > Java
> > > > > > used to access the data.
> > > > > > Will this solution address your issues?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with .NET
> and
> > > C++
> > > > :)
> > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as cache keys and values, as
> > fields
> > > > and
> > > > > > > properties,
> > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y clauses) - it works
> > > > transparently
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > the users.
> > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats those values as
> corresponding
> > > > signed
> > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in some cases only because
> there
> > > are
> > > > no
> > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very simple change to the protocol
> -
> > > add
> > > > > type
> > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as signed counterparts.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise representation is the
> > > same)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a uByte field and map it
> to
> > > > > 'uint8'
> > > > > > > > column.
> > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to "250" and put the object
> into a
> > > > > table,
> > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a single byte 'int8' column.
> > > > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it to directly the Java
> > object
> > > > > field
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8 type to Java 'short' type
> > > > > > > > because the one expected to see "250" as a value which
> doesn't
> > > fit
> > > > to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > signed type.
> > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a BigInteger field in Java.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat column value as Java 'byte' as
> is,
> > > > > because
> > > > > > > > after reading you will get a negative value, so it should be
> > cast
> > > > to
> > > > > > > short
> > > > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger for uint64)
> > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will require a different comparator.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a good idea.
> > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the simple approach I
> described?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing range for unsigned types
> then
> > we
> > > > > could
> > > > > > > > add a
> > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on schema level (like
> > > nullability
> > > > > > flag)
> > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types in storage.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate storage type-system and
> binary
> > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of type will match 1 to 1 with
> > > > storage
> > > > > > > > (native)
> > > > > > > > > > type.
> > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either have a separate type id or
> > treat
> > > > > > > > serialized
> > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed or unsigned flag).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Igor,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever foresee the consequences of
> > using
> > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned types perfectly works
> with
> > > some
> > > > > > > > database,
> > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite successor confession with our
> > > > "native"
> > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he can use the power of Ignite
> > > Compute
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either fail to use his unsigned
> data
> > > on
> > > > > Java
> > > > > > > due
> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due to natural Java type system
> > > > > limitations
> > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively supported types with possible
> value
> > > > > ranges
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
> > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is what trade-off we found
> > acceptable:
> > > > > > > narrowing
> > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use types of wider range on
> systems
> > > like
> > > > > > Java.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor Sapego <
> > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so hard to implement
> > comparison
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not seem to be a big issue
> > > from
> > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned types from Java - I think,
> > if
> > > a
> > > > > user
> > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to interact with it from Java
> he
> > > > knows
> > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > doing.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from platforms where they have
> > > native
> > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > widely
> > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where users currently have
> to
> > > > make a
> > > > > > > > manual
> > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > casting
> > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using unsigned types when they use
> > > Ignite.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
> > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for those types (basically,
> just
> > > add
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > ids)
> > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise representation
> > is
> > > > the
> > > > > > > same)
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned integers, so we can
> > > simply
> > > > > say
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative comparison is not supported
> in
> > > SQL
> > > > > > > > (equality
> > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > work).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have i8 or int8 instead of
> > > Integer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't address the issue.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types should be portable across
> > > > different
> > > > > > > > systems
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type support.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is that unsigned types cover
> > > > different
> > > > > > > > ranges.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to introduce a uLong.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big deal to add uLong type
> > > support
> > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > storage
> > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and then use it in e.g.
> .Net
> > > > only.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support it in e.g. Java?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range is about (2^-63 ..
> > 2^63)
> > > > and
> > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > > > > range
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to restrict range to (0 ..
> > > 2^63).
> > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but doesn't look like a
> > 'real'
> > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse when the user will use
> > uByte,
> > > as
> > > > > > > > > limitation
> > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map unsigned types to a
> type
> > of
> > > > > wider
> > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative values. E.g. uLong to
> > > > BigInteger.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive Java type for Long here.
> > > > > However,
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8 bytes, but have a
> > special
> > > > > > > comparator
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid unwanted deserialization.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of "long, short, byte" in
> the
> > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style, which is concise and
> > > > unambiguous:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM Igor Sapego <
> > > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support that. Also, if we are aiming
> > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger platform-independance,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may want to support
> > bit-notation
> > > > > > (int32,
> > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> > > > > > > > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a different type on different
> > > > platforms
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often when using ODBC for
> example).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM Pavel Tupitsyn
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should support unsigned data
> types:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have them, but many other
> > languages
> > > > do,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing number of thin clients
> > this
> > > is
> > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in current Ignite.NET
> > implementation
> > > > we
> > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain when it comes to
> > > metadata,
> > > > > > binary
> > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to deserialize int as uint when
> you
> > > > have
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > class,
> > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM Andrey
> > > Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both serializers use reflection
> > > API.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will allow users to configure
> > > static
> > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > along
> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still need to validate user
> > > > classes
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > client
> > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in the grid  and
> reflection
> > > API
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few articles on the internet
> > on
> > > > how
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task for supporting GraalVM,
> > and
> > > > > maybe
> > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM will suggest a
> solution
> > > or
> > > > a
> > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is found, we could allow
> > users
> > > > to
> > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I don't think it is a good
> > idea
> > > > to
> > > > > > > expose
> > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the public.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM Denis
> Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the update,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the serializers take into
> > > > > consideration
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native-image-generation feature of
> GraalVM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current binary marshaller, we
> > can't
> > > > even
> > > > > > > > > generate
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > native
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using our thin client APIs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM Andrey
> > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to continue discussion of
> IEP-54
> > > > > > > > (Schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who is interested had a
> > > chance
> > > > to
> > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to ask
> questions
> > > and
> > > > > > share
> > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a prototype of serializer
> > [2]
> > > > for
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > layout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I compared 2 approaches to
> > > > > > > (de)serialize
> > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java reflection/unsafe API and
> > similar
> > > > to
> > > > > > one
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second one generates serializer
> > for
> > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > class
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library for compilation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows better results in
> > > > benchmarks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go with it as default
> > > > serializer
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation as a fallback if someone
> > > will
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of tasks under the
> > > > umbrella
> > > > > > > ticket
> > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to create more tickets
> for
> > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > manager
> > > > > > > > > > > > modes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation, but would like to
> clarify
> > > > some
> > > > > > > > details.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought schemaManager on each node
> > should
> > > > > held:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping of "schema version"
> > <-->
> > > > > > > validated
> > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide schema changes
> history.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client side. Before any
> key-value
> > > API
> > > > > > > > operation
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a given key-value pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no local-mapping exists
> for a
> > > > given
> > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema has a more recent
> > > version
> > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be validated against the latest
> > > > version
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object doesn't fit to the latest
> > > schema
> > > > > > then
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > depends
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail the operation
> ('strict'
> > > > mode)
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a new schema version should
> > be
> > > > > > > propagated
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server side we usually have no
> > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > classes
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change history is available
> > and a
> > > > > tuple
> > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to upgrade any received
> > > tuple
> > > > to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > last
> > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow nodes to send
> > key-value
> > > > > pairs
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't receive a schema update
> yet)
> > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > reverting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node with newer classes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the same?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Ivan
> > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not ignore history. We had
> a
> > > > thread
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can resume it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00, Denis
> Magda
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks for
> > > explaining.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we need to have a
> separate
> > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms substitution. I'll
> > > > appreciate
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing pointers to any relevant
> IEPs
> > > and
> > > > > > > > reasoning
> > > > > > > > > > > > behind
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM
> > Valentin
> > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the wording in the IEP is
> a
> > > > little
> > > > > > bit
> > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you should not create nested
> > > POJOs,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > > > inline
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO that is mapped to a
> > > > particular
> > > > > > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this correct? Please let
> me
> > > > know
> > > > > if
> > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the "cache" term, I agree
> > that
> > > it
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > outdated,
> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can replace it with.
> "Table"
> > > is
> > > > > > > tightly
> > > > > > > > > > > > associated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional in our case. Do
> you
> > > want
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > create a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM
> Denis
> > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked the IEP again and
> > have a
> > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > questions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects and
> > > > collections
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should either be
> > > inlined
> > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > schema,
> > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL code
> > snippet
> > > > > > showing
> > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to work?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep using the terms
> > "cache"
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right time to discuss an
> > > alternate
> > > > > name
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the "table" should
> stay
> > > and
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > "cache"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one of the primary
> APIs
> > > in
> > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM
> > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your point. I agree that
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > automatic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last territory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we support
> automatic
> > > > > > > evolution,
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a cache without schema
> > and
> > > > > > > inferring
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other words, we can have both
> > > > > > > "schema-first"
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59 AM
> > > Alexey
> > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got your concern
> > > now.
> > > > As
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > terminology, I am absolutely
> > fine
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the approach best. Dynamic or
> > > > > evolving
> > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > corresponding changes to the
> > IEP
> > > > once
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > settle
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в 11:33,
> > Ivan
> > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for your answer!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My understanding is a
> little
> > > bit
> > > > > > > > different.
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > definitely should be
> > possible.
> > > > But
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is updated". I
> treat a
> > > > > common
> > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data manipulation
> > > operations
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > clearly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > interesting capabilities,
> > e.g.
> > > > > > > preventing
> > > > > > > > > > > > untended
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data operations,
> > > > > restricting
> > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first means that
> > > schema
> > > > > > exists
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > advance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is compliant with it -
> that's
> > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last approach
> > > mentioned
> > > > in
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is inferred
> > from
> > > > > data.
> > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing approach?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would like to say,
> that
> > > my
> > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > concern
> > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > terminology. And I suppose
> if
> > > it
> > > > > > > confuses
> > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused as well. My
> feeling
> > is
> > > > > > closer
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47 GMT+03:00,
> > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an issue with
> > > that.
> > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance and all the
> stored
> > > data
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > compliant
> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is proposed. There are no
> > > > > > > restrictions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at
> 9:52
> > > PM
> > > > > Ivan
> > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit
> confused
> > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > terminology.
> > > > > > > > > > > > My
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see
> part
> > X
> > > > Semi
> > > > > > > > > > Structured
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema"
> > approach
> > > > as a
> > > > > > > kind
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53
> GMT+03:00,
> > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you
> > please
> > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case
> for
> > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so,
> > what
> > > is
> > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
> > > understanding,
> > > > > all
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing
> something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes, if
> all
> > > the
> > > > > ORM
> > > > > > > > > > > integrations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > internally, then they
> > can
> > > > > easily
> > > > > > > > > > translate
> > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE
> statement
> > > that
> > > > > > lists
> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data
> integration
> > is
> > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > based
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be improved once
> the
> > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of
> usability
> > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would revise the
> > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say if
> it's
> > > > used
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind, I'll
> > > loop
> > > > > you
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > long
> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support for
> > > Micornaut
> > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came across some
> > > challenges.
> > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > > > watch
> > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite 3.0.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020
> at
> > > 5:11
> > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally speaking, I
> > > > believe
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the issue
> if
> > > > > > duplicate
> > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be
> created
> > > for
> > > > a
> > > > > > > cache,
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the schema
> > > will
> > > > > > define
> > > > > > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which fields are
> > > > included
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be
> compliant
> > > with
> > > > > > this,
> > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a set of
> > > > > records,
> > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you
> > please
> > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case
> for
> > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so,
> > what
> > > is
> > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
> > > understanding,
> > > > > all
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing
> something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020
> at
> > > > 2:08
> > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would propose
> > adding
> > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > point
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to the ORM
> > > > > frameworks
> > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the
> > storage
> > > > > engine
> > > > > > > > > > requires
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones that
> > > > complicate
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially if a
> key
> > > > object
> > > > > > > > > comprises
> > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice if
> > the
> > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single entity
> object
> > > when
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > comes
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a key
> and
> > > > > value.
> > > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the essential
> > > public
> > > > > APIs
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > single-entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28,
> 2020
> > at
> > > > > 3:50
> > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the big
> > > changes
> > > > > > > proposed
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first
> > > > approach".
> > > > > To
> > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this change:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a
> look
> > > and
> > > > > let
> > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions, or
> > > > > objections.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>]

Ilya,

Thanks for feedback.

1. It is a Nested Builder pattern [1]. With a nested builder user will have
a single entry point to build a schema.
When you have a number of builders and one builder need a result of some
another builder, users can be confused and waste a time while looking for
proper implementation.
So, I thought it would be polite to either use a nested builder or have a
factory\helper class for all related builders.
Ok, I've got it.
Mixing nested with chained builders may be non intuitive and your
suggestion (to go the same way with PK as with secondary indices) looks
good.

2. I don't like to pass a builder to another builder because it will look
like you will implicitly use a passed builder.
Actually you can't do anything other than call the "build()" method (of
passed builder) as the method (alretColumn) signature expects some interface
and you can't rely on any expected internal implementation will be ever
passed.
I'd think a Command object should be passed here:
TableModificationBuilder.alretColumn(AlterColumnCommand acc)

Your approach requires an additional interface for Command(s) and some
entry point class to users could find the builder easily.
Thus, I'd proceed with a nested builder approach in that particular case.
JOOQ goes the same way and it looks ok.

3. I think an additional explanation needed here.
We thought that in Ignite 3.0 it should be possible to create schema via
SQL and via pure Java code.
Current QueryEntity has a bad and confusing API, so we decided to rework it
using builders.
Also, we thought about initial schema (as a part of initial configuration)
that can be applied only once on the first grid start and then it can only
be modified.

SchemaTable builder is the way users can create initial
schema/configuration programmatically. It creates some standalone objects
perpesening a schema

Modification builder is the way users can modify the schema like an "ALTER"
SQL command. It creates and applies some sequence of internal commands,
which can be useful (in "live-schema" mode) to create automatic converters
from one schema version to another.
Thus Modification builder produces objects that are wired and interact with
the node internal components.
Modification builders can be requested from Schema manager components that
are out of scope now.

So, you may note these builders are very different, but I think we could
have a similar style in both parts of API and even reuse some
interfaces\objects, As you can see I reuse IndexBuilders.


[1] https://dzone.com/articles/nested-builder



On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 11:54 AM Ilya Kazakov <ka...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello, Andrei!
>
> I have read this thread and PR. The builder idea and API looks good. But I
> have some questions.
>
> 1.
> In SchemaTableBuilder:
> When I use a builder in chain style, I expect in every step the same result
> type. And as I see this idea is implemented anywhere except pk(), where you
> return PrimryKeyBuilder. As for me, it will be more intuitive if we will
> use something like this:
>
> SchemaTableBuilder.pk(PrimryKeyBuilder pkb)
>
> 2.
> In TableModificationBuilder:
> I have the same question. Some methods returns TableModificationBuilder,
> but alretColumn returns AlterColumnBuilder. As for me, it will be more
> intuitive if we will use something like
>
> TableModificationBuilder.alretColumn(AlterColumnBuilder acb)
>
> But in general, these two points are only a matter of taste.
>
> 3.
> In your examples, I can't understand how we can alter some table, which we
> have already created previously (how we can get its SchemaTable object).
> But maybe this question is out of scope?
>
> ------------------
> Thanks
> Ilya Kazakov
>
> вт, 29 дек. 2020 г. в 15:22, Michael Cherkasov <
> michael.cherkasov@gmail.com
> >:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I reviewed the mail thread and proposal page and I still don't fully
> > understand what is going to be changed, I would really appreciate it if
> you
> > will answer a few questions:
> >
> > 1. Are you going to leave only one schema per cache? if so, will be there
> > an option to have a table with arbitrary objects(pure KV case)?
> > 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0 have to define schema?
> SchemaBuilder
> > and SQL only? Is there an option to put the schema definition to the
> > configuration?(I really don't like this, I would prefer to have
> > separate scripts to create schemas)
> > 3. Is there a way to change field type? if yes, can it be done in
> runtime?
> > 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going to be re-worked too, is there any
> > IEP for this?
> > 5. I don't like automatic schema evaluation when a new field is added
> > automatically on record put, so is there a way to prohibit this behavior?
> >  I think all schema changes should be done only explicitly except initial
> > schema creation.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mike.
> >
> > пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey Mashenkov <
> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > >:
> >
> > > Hi, Igniters.
> > >
> > > We all know that the current QueryEntity API is not convenient and
> needs
> > to
> > > be reworked.
> > > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema configuration public API for
> > > Ignite 3.0.
> > >
> > > New schema configuration uses Builder pattern, which looks more
> > comfortable
> > > to use.
> > >
> > > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package with the API itself, and a
> > draft
> > > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
> > > and a test that demonstrates how the API could be used.
> > >
> > > Please note:
> > >
> > > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with static factory methods.
> > > * The implementation is decoupled and can be easily extracted to
> separate
> > > module if we decide to do so.
> > > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are missed, they will be added
> > lately
> > > in separate tickes.
> > > * Index configuration extends marker interface that makes possible to
> > > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
> > > Hopfully, we could add a persistent geo-indices support in future.
> > > * Supposedly, current table schema can be changed via builder-like
> > > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See 'TableModificationBuilder'
> > for
> > > details.
> > > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have 'toBuilder()' converter for that
> > > purpose as it is a Schema Manager responsibility to create mutator
> > objects
> > > from the current schema,
> > > but implementing the Schema manager is out of scope and will be
> designed
> > > within the next task.
> > > * Interfaces implementations are out of scope. I did not intend to
> merge
> > > them right now, but for test/demostration purposes.
> > >
> > > It is NOT the final version and some may be changed before the first
> > > release of course.
> > > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed with this approach or some
> > > issues should be resolved at first.
> > >
> > > Any thoughts or objections?
> > > Are interfaces good enough to be merged within the current ticket?
> > >
> > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <ju...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
> > > > 2. It requires adding new types to the internal representation,
> > protocol,
> > > > e.t.c.
> > > > 3. internal representation should be the same as we keep sign types.
> So
> > > it
> > > > will not requires more memory
> > > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such types for platforms which
> not
> > > > support unsigned types. For example, a user could derive -6 value in
> > Java
> > > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits perspective will be right). I
> > > think
> > > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such cases, especially it will be
> > bad
> > > > for unsigned long when we require returns BigInteger type.
> > > > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix for new types like a
> > '250u' -
> > > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
> > > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive comparison logic for
> indexes
> > > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for expressions. I think it not
> > > > possible for the current H2 engine and probably possible for the new
> > > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from anybody who involved in this
> > part
> > > >
> > > > WDYT?
> > > >
> > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > >
> > > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0: once we the actual
> type
> > > > > information, we can make proper runtime adjustments and conversions
> > to
> > > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will be just a bit more
> > expensive.
> > > > >
> > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupitsyn@apache.org
> >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
> > > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons and so on are broken
> > > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned this somewhere
> above.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document that SQL is not supported
> on
> > > > those
> > > > > > types,
> > > > > > end of story.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable request. I thought about
> this
> > > > when
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add these types right
> > away.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with .NET
> > and
> > > > C++
> > > > > :)
> > > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually works as expected, it needs
> > > some
> > > > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns are false):
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >    - It's true that equality check works properly, but for SQL
> > > range
> > > > > > >    queries it will break unless some special care is taken on
> > Java
> > > > > side:
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will be converted to -1,
> > > which
> > > > > will
> > > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we don't have unsigned types
> now,
> > I
> > > > > doubt
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > >    works.
> > > > > > >    - There is an obvious cross-platform data loss when
> > "intuitive"
> > > > type
> > > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8 corresponds to byte type in
> > .NET,
> > > > but
> > > > > to
> > > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have to use short type in
> Java,
> > > and
> > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >    will also need to take care of the range check during
> > > > > serialization).
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > >    think we can even allow to try to deserialize a value into
> > > > arbitrary
> > > > > > > type,
> > > > > > >    but throw an exception if the range is out of bounds.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
> > > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once all the details are
> > > settled
> > > > > > here?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't be treated correctly
> > for
> > > > now
> > > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think we could make "true" support for unsigned types, but
> > they
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
> > > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map uint64 to Java long
> > > > primitive,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > BigInteger only.
> > > > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64 to Java long, but treat
> > > > negative
> > > > > > > > values in a different way to preserve correct ordering.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > These limitations will affect only mixed environments when
> .Net
> > > and
> > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > used to access the data.
> > > > > > > > Will this solution address your issues?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with
> .NET
> > > and
> > > > > C++
> > > > > > :)
> > > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as cache keys and values,
> as
> > > > fields
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > properties,
> > > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y clauses) - it works
> > > > > > transparently
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > the users.
> > > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats those values as
> > > corresponding
> > > > > > signed
> > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in some cases only because
> > > there
> > > > > are
> > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> > > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very simple change to the
> > protocol
> > > -
> > > > > add
> > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as signed counterparts.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise representation is
> > the
> > > > > same)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a uByte field and map
> it
> > > to
> > > > > > > 'uint8'
> > > > > > > > > > column.
> > > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to "250" and put the object
> > > into a
> > > > > > > table,
> > > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a single byte 'int8'
> column.
> > > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it to directly the Java
> > > > object
> > > > > > > field
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8 type to Java 'short'
> > type
> > > > > > > > > > because the one expected to see "250" as a value which
> > > doesn't
> > > > > fit
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > signed type.
> > > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a BigInteger field in Java.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat column value as Java 'byte'
> as
> > > is,
> > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a negative value, so it should
> > be
> > > > cast
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > short
> > > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger for uint64)
> > > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will require a different
> > comparator.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a good idea.
> > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the simple approach I
> > > described?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing range for unsigned types
> > > then
> > > > we
> > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > > add a
> > > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on schema level (like
> > > > > nullability
> > > > > > > > flag)
> > > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types in storage.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate storage type-system and
> > > binary
> > > > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of type will match 1 to 1
> > with
> > > > > > storage
> > > > > > > > > > (native)
> > > > > > > > > > > > type.
> > > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either have a separate type id
> or
> > > > treat
> > > > > > > > > > serialized
> > > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed or unsigned flag).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever foresee the consequences
> of
> > > > using
> > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned types perfectly works
> > > with
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > database,
> > > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite successor confession with
> our
> > > > > > "native"
> > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> > > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he can use the power of
> Ignite
> > > > > Compute
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either fail to use his
> unsigned
> > > data
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > > due
> > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due to natural Java type
> system
> > > > > > > limitations
> > > > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively supported types with possible
> > > value
> > > > > > > ranges
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
> > > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is what trade-off we found
> > > > acceptable:
> > > > > > > > > narrowing
> > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use types of wider range on
> > > systems
> > > > > like
> > > > > > > > Java.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor Sapego <
> > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so hard to implement
> > > > comparison
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not seem to be a big
> > issue
> > > > > from
> > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned types from Java - I
> > think,
> > > > if
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to interact with it from
> > Java
> > > he
> > > > > > knows
> > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from platforms where they
> > have
> > > > > native
> > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > widely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where users currently
> have
> > > to
> > > > > > make a
> > > > > > > > > > manual
> > > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > > > casting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using unsigned types when they
> use
> > > > > Ignite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for those types
> (basically,
> > > just
> > > > > add
> > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise
> > representation
> > > > is
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > same)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned integers, so we
> can
> > > > > simply
> > > > > > > say
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative comparison is not
> supported
> > > in
> > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > (equality
> > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM Andrey Mashenkov
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have i8 or int8 instead of
> > > > > Integer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't address the issue.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types should be portable
> across
> > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > systems
> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type support.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is that unsigned types
> cover
> > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > ranges.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to introduce a uLong.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big deal to add uLong
> type
> > > > > support
> > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > storage
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and then use it in e.g.
> > > .Net
> > > > > > only.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support it in e.g. Java?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range is about (2^-63
> ..
> > > > 2^63)
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > range
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to restrict range to (0
> ..
> > > > > 2^63).
> > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but doesn't look like
> a
> > > > 'real'
> > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse when the user will use
> > > > uByte,
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > limitation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map unsigned types to a
> > > type
> > > > of
> > > > > > > wider
> > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative values. E.g. uLong to
> > > > > > BigInteger.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive Java type for Long
> > here.
> > > > > > > However,
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8 bytes, but have a
> > > > special
> > > > > > > > > comparator
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid unwanted
> deserialization.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Pavel Tupitsyn
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of "long, short, byte"
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style, which is concise and
> > > > > > unambiguous:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM Igor Sapego <
> > > > > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support that. Also, if we are
> > aiming
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger platform-independance,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may want to support
> > > > bit-notation
> > > > > > > > (int32,
> > > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a different type on
> different
> > > > > > platforms
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often when using ODBC for
> > > example).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM Pavel
> > Tupitsyn
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should support unsigned data
> > > types:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have them, but many other
> > > > languages
> > > > > > do,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing number of thin
> clients
> > > > this
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in current Ignite.NET
> > > > implementation
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain when it comes to
> > > > > metadata,
> > > > > > > > binary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to deserialize int as uint
> when
> > > you
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > class,
> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM Andrey
> > > > > Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both serializers use
> > reflection
> > > > > API.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will allow users to
> configure
> > > > > static
> > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > along
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still need to validate
> > user
> > > > > > classes
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > client
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in the grid  and
> > > reflection
> > > > > API
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few articles on the
> > internet
> > > > on
> > > > > > how
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task for supporting
> > GraalVM,
> > > > and
> > > > > > > maybe
> > > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM will suggest a
> > > solution
> > > > > or
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is found, we could
> allow
> > > > users
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I don't think it is a
> > good
> > > > idea
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > expose
> > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the public.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM Denis
> > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the update,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the serializers take into
> > > > > > > consideration
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native-image-generation feature of
> > > GraalVM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current binary marshaller,
> we
> > > > can't
> > > > > > even
> > > > > > > > > > > generate
> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using our thin client
> > APIs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM
> Andrey
> > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to continue discussion of
> > > IEP-54
> > > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who is interested
> had a
> > > > > chance
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to ask
> > > questions
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > share
> > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a prototype of
> > serializer
> > > > [2]
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I compared 2 approaches
> > to
> > > > > > > > > (de)serialize
> > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java reflection/unsafe API and
> > > > similar
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second one generates
> > serializer
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library for compilation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows better results in
> > > > > > benchmarks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go with it as
> default
> > > > > > serializer
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation as a fallback if
> > someone
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of tasks under
> the
> > > > > > umbrella
> > > > > > > > > ticket
> > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to create more
> tickets
> > > for
> > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > manager
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation, but would like to
> > > clarify
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > details.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought schemaManager on each
> node
> > > > should
> > > > > > > held:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping of "schema
> > version"
> > > > <-->
> > > > > > > > > validated
> > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide schema changes
> > > history.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client side. Before any
> > > key-value
> > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > operation
> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a given key-value pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no local-mapping exists
> > > for a
> > > > > > given
> > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema has a more
> recent
> > > > > version
> > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be validated against the
> > latest
> > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object doesn't fit to the
> > latest
> > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > depends
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail the operation
> > > ('strict'
> > > > > > mode)
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a new schema version
> > should
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > > propagated
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server side we usually have
> no
> > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > classes
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change history is
> available
> > > > and a
> > > > > > > tuple
> > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to upgrade any
> > received
> > > > > tuple
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > last
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow nodes to send
> > > > key-value
> > > > > > > pairs
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't receive a schema update
> > > yet)
> > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > reverting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node with newer classes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the
> > same?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM
> Ivan
> > > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not ignore history. We
> > had
> > > a
> > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can resume it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00, Denis
> > > Magda
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks for
> > > > > explaining.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we need to have a
> > > separate
> > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms substitution.
> I'll
> > > > > > appreciate
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing pointers to any
> relevant
> > > IEPs
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > reasoning
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM
> > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the wording in the IEP
> > is
> > > a
> > > > > > little
> > > > > > > > bit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you should not create
> > nested
> > > > > POJOs,
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO that is mapped to
> a
> > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this correct? Please
> > let
> > > me
> > > > > > know
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the "cache" term, I
> agree
> > > > that
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can replace it with.
> > > "Table"
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > tightly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional in our case.
> Do
> > > you
> > > > > want
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > create a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM
> > > Denis
> > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked the IEP again
> and
> > > > have a
> > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > > questions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects and
> > > > > > collections
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should either
> be
> > > > > inlined
> > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > schema,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL code
> > > > snippet
> > > > > > > > showing
> > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to work?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep using the terms
> > > > "cache"
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right time to discuss an
> > > > > alternate
> > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the "table"
> should
> > > stay
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one of the
> primary
> > > APIs
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26
> PM
> > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your point. I agree
> > that
> > > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > automatic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last territory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we support
> > > automatic
> > > > > > > > > evolution,
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a cache without
> > schema
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > inferring
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other words, we can have
> both
> > > > > > > > > "schema-first"
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59
> > AM
> > > > > Alexey
> > > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got your
> > concern
> > > > > now.
> > > > > > As
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > terminology, I am
> > absolutely
> > > > fine
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the approach best.
> Dynamic
> > or
> > > > > > > evolving
> > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > corresponding changes to
> > the
> > > > IEP
> > > > > > once
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > settle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в
> > 11:33,
> > > > Ivan
> > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for your
> > answer!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My understanding is a
> > > little
> > > > > bit
> > > > > > > > > > different.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > definitely should be
> > > > possible.
> > > > > > But
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is updated". I
> > > treat a
> > > > > > > common
> > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data manipulation
> > > > > operations
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > clearly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > interesting
> capabilities,
> > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > preventing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data
> operations,
> > > > > > > restricting
> > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first means
> that
> > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > exists
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is compliant with it -
> > > that's
> > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last approach
> > > > > mentioned
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is
> > inferred
> > > > from
> > > > > > > data.
> > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing approach?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would like to
> say,
> > > that
> > > > > my
> > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > terminology. And I
> > suppose
> > > if
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > confuses
> > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused as well. My
> > > feeling
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > closer
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47
> > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an issue
> > with
> > > > > that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance and all the
> > > stored
> > > > > data
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > compliant
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is proposed. There
> are
> > no
> > > > > > > > > restrictions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020
> at
> > > 9:52
> > > > > PM
> > > > > > > Ivan
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit
> > > confused
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > My
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see
> > > part
> > > > X
> > > > > > Semi
> > > > > > > > > > > > Structured
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema"
> > > > approach
> > > > > > as a
> > > > > > > > > kind
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53
> > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could
> you
> > > > please
> > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use
> case
> > > for
> > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If
> so,
> > > > what
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
> > > > > understanding,
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing
> > > something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes,
> if
> > > all
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > ORM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > internally, then
> > they
> > > > can
> > > > > > > easily
> > > > > > > > > > > > translate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE
> > > statement
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > lists
> > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data
> > > integration
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be improved
> once
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of
> > > usability
> > > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would revise the
> > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say
> if
> > > it's
> > > > > > used
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind,
> > I'll
> > > > > loop
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > long
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support for
> > > > > Micornaut
> > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came across some
> > > > > challenges.
> > > > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > > > > > watch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite
> > 3.0.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31,
> 2020
> > > at
> > > > > 5:11
> > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally
> > speaking, I
> > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the
> issue
> > > if
> > > > > > > > duplicate
> > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be
> > > created
> > > > > for
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > cache,
> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the
> > schema
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > > define
> > > > > > > > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which fields
> > are
> > > > > > included
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be
> > > compliant
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > this,
> > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a
> set
> > of
> > > > > > > records,
> > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could
> you
> > > > please
> > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use
> case
> > > for
> > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If
> so,
> > > > what
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
> > > > > understanding,
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing
> > > something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31,
> > 2020
> > > at
> > > > > > 2:08
> > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would propose
> > > > adding
> > > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > > > point
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to the
> > ORM
> > > > > > > frameworks
> > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the
> > > > storage
> > > > > > > engine
> > > > > > > > > > > > requires
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones that
> > > > > > complicate
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially if
> a
> > > key
> > > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > > comprises
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice
> > if
> > > > the
> > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single entity
> > > object
> > > > > when
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > comes
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a
> key
> > > and
> > > > > > > value.
> > > > > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the
> essential
> > > > > public
> > > > > > > APIs
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > single-entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you
> > think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28,
> > > 2020
> > > > at
> > > > > > > 3:50
> > > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the
> big
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > proposed
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first
> > > > > > approach".
> > > > > > > To
> > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this
> > change:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a
> > > look
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > let
> > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions,
> or
> > > > > > > objections.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >
> >
>


-- 
Best regards,
Andrey V. Mashenkov

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Ilya Kazakov <ka...@gmail.com>]

Hello, Andrei!

I have read this thread and PR. The builder idea and API looks good. But I
have some questions.

1.
In SchemaTableBuilder:
When I use a builder in chain style, I expect in every step the same result
type. And as I see this idea is implemented anywhere except pk(), where you
return PrimryKeyBuilder. As for me, it will be more intuitive if we will
use something like this:

SchemaTableBuilder.pk(PrimryKeyBuilder pkb)

2.
In TableModificationBuilder:
I have the same question. Some methods returns TableModificationBuilder,
but alretColumn returns AlterColumnBuilder. As for me, it will be more
intuitive if we will use something like

TableModificationBuilder.alretColumn(AlterColumnBuilder acb)

But in general, these two points are only a matter of taste.

3.
In your examples, I can't understand how we can alter some table, which we
have already created previously (how we can get its SchemaTable object).
But maybe this question is out of scope?

------------------
Thanks
Ilya Kazakov

вт, 29 дек. 2020 г. в 15:22, Michael Cherkasov <michael.cherkasov@gmail.com
>:

> Hi all,
>
> I reviewed the mail thread and proposal page and I still don't fully
> understand what is going to be changed, I would really appreciate it if you
> will answer a few questions:
>
> 1. Are you going to leave only one schema per cache? if so, will be there
> an option to have a table with arbitrary objects(pure KV case)?
> 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0 have to define schema? SchemaBuilder
> and SQL only? Is there an option to put the schema definition to the
> configuration?(I really don't like this, I would prefer to have
> separate scripts to create schemas)
> 3. Is there a way to change field type? if yes, can it be done in runtime?
> 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going to be re-worked too, is there any
> IEP for this?
> 5. I don't like automatic schema evaluation when a new field is added
> automatically on record put, so is there a way to prohibit this behavior?
>  I think all schema changes should be done only explicitly except initial
> schema creation.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike.
>
> пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey Mashenkov <andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> >:
>
> > Hi, Igniters.
> >
> > We all know that the current QueryEntity API is not convenient and needs
> to
> > be reworked.
> > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema configuration public API for
> > Ignite 3.0.
> >
> > New schema configuration uses Builder pattern, which looks more
> comfortable
> > to use.
> >
> > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package with the API itself, and a
> draft
> > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
> > and a test that demonstrates how the API could be used.
> >
> > Please note:
> >
> > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with static factory methods.
> > * The implementation is decoupled and can be easily extracted to separate
> > module if we decide to do so.
> > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are missed, they will be added
> lately
> > in separate tickes.
> > * Index configuration extends marker interface that makes possible to
> > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
> > Hopfully, we could add a persistent geo-indices support in future.
> > * Supposedly, current table schema can be changed via builder-like
> > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See 'TableModificationBuilder'
> for
> > details.
> > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have 'toBuilder()' converter for that
> > purpose as it is a Schema Manager responsibility to create mutator
> objects
> > from the current schema,
> > but implementing the Schema manager is out of scope and will be designed
> > within the next task.
> > * Interfaces implementations are out of scope. I did not intend to merge
> > them right now, but for test/demostration purposes.
> >
> > It is NOT the final version and some may be changed before the first
> > release of course.
> > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed with this approach or some
> > issues should be resolved at first.
> >
> > Any thoughts or objections?
> > Are interfaces good enough to be merged within the current ticket?
> >
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <ju...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types:
> > >
> > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
> > > 2. It requires adding new types to the internal representation,
> protocol,
> > > e.t.c.
> > > 3. internal representation should be the same as we keep sign types. So
> > it
> > > will not requires more memory
> > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such types for platforms which not
> > > support unsigned types. For example, a user could derive -6 value in
> Java
> > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits perspective will be right). I
> > think
> > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such cases, especially it will be
> bad
> > > for unsigned long when we require returns BigInteger type.
> > > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix for new types like a
> '250u' -
> > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
> > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive comparison logic for indexes
> > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for expressions. I think it not
> > > possible for the current H2 engine and probably possible for the new
> > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from anybody who involved in this
> part
> > >
> > > WDYT?
> > >
> > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > >
> > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0: once we the actual type
> > > > information, we can make proper runtime adjustments and conversions
> to
> > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will be just a bit more
> expensive.
> > > >
> > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
> > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons and so on are broken
> > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned this somewhere above.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document that SQL is not supported on
> > > those
> > > > > types,
> > > > > end of story.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable request. I thought about this
> > > when
> > > > I
> > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add these types right
> away.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with .NET
> and
> > > C++
> > > > :)
> > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually works as expected, it needs
> > some
> > > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns are false):
> > > > > >
> > > > > >    - It's true that equality check works properly, but for SQL
> > range
> > > > > >    queries it will break unless some special care is taken on
> Java
> > > > side:
> > > > > > for
> > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will be converted to -1,
> > which
> > > > will
> > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we don't have unsigned types now,
> I
> > > > doubt
> > > > > it
> > > > > >    works.
> > > > > >    - There is an obvious cross-platform data loss when
> "intuitive"
> > > type
> > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8 corresponds to byte type in
> .NET,
> > > but
> > > > to
> > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have to use short type in Java,
> > and
> > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >    will also need to take care of the range check during
> > > > serialization).
> > > > > I
> > > > > >    think we can even allow to try to deserialize a value into
> > > arbitrary
> > > > > > type,
> > > > > >    but throw an exception if the range is out of bounds.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
> > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once all the details are
> > settled
> > > > > here?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't be treated correctly
> for
> > > now
> > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think we could make "true" support for unsigned types, but
> they
> > > > will
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
> > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map uint64 to Java long
> > > primitive,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > BigInteger only.
> > > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64 to Java long, but treat
> > > negative
> > > > > > > values in a different way to preserve correct ordering.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > These limitations will affect only mixed environments when .Net
> > and
> > > > > Java
> > > > > > > used to access the data.
> > > > > > > Will this solution address your issues?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with .NET
> > and
> > > > C++
> > > > > :)
> > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as cache keys and values, as
> > > fields
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > properties,
> > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y clauses) - it works
> > > > > transparently
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > the users.
> > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats those values as
> > corresponding
> > > > > signed
> > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in some cases only because
> > there
> > > > are
> > > > > no
> > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very simple change to the
> protocol
> > -
> > > > add
> > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as signed counterparts.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise representation is
> the
> > > > same)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a uByte field and map it
> > to
> > > > > > 'uint8'
> > > > > > > > > column.
> > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to "250" and put the object
> > into a
> > > > > > table,
> > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a single byte 'int8' column.
> > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it to directly the Java
> > > object
> > > > > > field
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8 type to Java 'short'
> type
> > > > > > > > > because the one expected to see "250" as a value which
> > doesn't
> > > > fit
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > signed type.
> > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a BigInteger field in Java.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat column value as Java 'byte' as
> > is,
> > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a negative value, so it should
> be
> > > cast
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > short
> > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger for uint64)
> > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will require a different
> comparator.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a good idea.
> > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the simple approach I
> > described?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing range for unsigned types
> > then
> > > we
> > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > add a
> > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on schema level (like
> > > > nullability
> > > > > > > flag)
> > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types in storage.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate storage type-system and
> > binary
> > > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of type will match 1 to 1
> with
> > > > > storage
> > > > > > > > > (native)
> > > > > > > > > > > type.
> > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either have a separate type id or
> > > treat
> > > > > > > > > serialized
> > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed or unsigned flag).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever foresee the consequences of
> > > using
> > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned types perfectly works
> > with
> > > > some
> > > > > > > > > database,
> > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite successor confession with our
> > > > > "native"
> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he can use the power of Ignite
> > > > Compute
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either fail to use his unsigned
> > data
> > > > on
> > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > due
> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due to natural Java type system
> > > > > > limitations
> > > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively supported types with possible
> > value
> > > > > > ranges
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
> > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is what trade-off we found
> > > acceptable:
> > > > > > > > narrowing
> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use types of wider range on
> > systems
> > > > like
> > > > > > > Java.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor Sapego <
> > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so hard to implement
> > > comparison
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not seem to be a big
> issue
> > > > from
> > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned types from Java - I
> think,
> > > if
> > > > a
> > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to interact with it from
> Java
> > he
> > > > > knows
> > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from platforms where they
> have
> > > > native
> > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > widely
> > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where users currently have
> > to
> > > > > make a
> > > > > > > > > manual
> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > > casting
> > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using unsigned types when they use
> > > > Ignite.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for those types (basically,
> > just
> > > > add
> > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise
> representation
> > > is
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > same)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned integers, so we can
> > > > simply
> > > > > > say
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative comparison is not supported
> > in
> > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > (equality
> > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have i8 or int8 instead of
> > > > Integer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't address the issue.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types should be portable across
> > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > systems
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type support.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is that unsigned types cover
> > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > ranges.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to introduce a uLong.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big deal to add uLong type
> > > > support
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > storage
> > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and then use it in e.g.
> > .Net
> > > > > only.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support it in e.g. Java?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range is about (2^-63 ..
> > > 2^63)
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > range
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to restrict range to (0 ..
> > > > 2^63).
> > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but doesn't look like a
> > > 'real'
> > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse when the user will use
> > > uByte,
> > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > limitation
> > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map unsigned types to a
> > type
> > > of
> > > > > > wider
> > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative values. E.g. uLong to
> > > > > BigInteger.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive Java type for Long
> here.
> > > > > > However,
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8 bytes, but have a
> > > special
> > > > > > > > comparator
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid unwanted deserialization.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of "long, short, byte" in
> > the
> > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style, which is concise and
> > > > > unambiguous:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM Igor Sapego <
> > > > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support that. Also, if we are
> aiming
> > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger platform-independance,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may want to support
> > > bit-notation
> > > > > > > (int32,
> > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a different type on different
> > > > > platforms
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often when using ODBC for
> > example).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM Pavel
> Tupitsyn
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should support unsigned data
> > types:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have them, but many other
> > > languages
> > > > > do,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing number of thin clients
> > > this
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in current Ignite.NET
> > > implementation
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain when it comes to
> > > > metadata,
> > > > > > > binary
> > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to deserialize int as uint when
> > you
> > > > > have
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > class,
> > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM Andrey
> > > > Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both serializers use
> reflection
> > > > API.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will allow users to configure
> > > > static
> > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > along
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still need to validate
> user
> > > > > classes
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > client
> > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in the grid  and
> > reflection
> > > > API
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few articles on the
> internet
> > > on
> > > > > how
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task for supporting
> GraalVM,
> > > and
> > > > > > maybe
> > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM will suggest a
> > solution
> > > > or
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is found, we could allow
> > > users
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I don't think it is a
> good
> > > idea
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > expose
> > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the public.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM Denis
> > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the update,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the serializers take into
> > > > > > consideration
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native-image-generation feature of
> > GraalVM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current binary marshaller, we
> > > can't
> > > > > even
> > > > > > > > > > generate
> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using our thin client
> APIs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM Andrey
> > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to continue discussion of
> > IEP-54
> > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who is interested had a
> > > > chance
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to ask
> > questions
> > > > and
> > > > > > > share
> > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a prototype of
> serializer
> > > [2]
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I compared 2 approaches
> to
> > > > > > > > (de)serialize
> > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java reflection/unsafe API and
> > > similar
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second one generates
> serializer
> > > for
> > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library for compilation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows better results in
> > > > > benchmarks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go with it as default
> > > > > serializer
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation as a fallback if
> someone
> > > > will
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of tasks under the
> > > > > umbrella
> > > > > > > > ticket
> > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to create more tickets
> > for
> > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > manager
> > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation, but would like to
> > clarify
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > details.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought schemaManager on each node
> > > should
> > > > > > held:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping of "schema
> version"
> > > <-->
> > > > > > > > validated
> > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide schema changes
> > history.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client side. Before any
> > key-value
> > > > API
> > > > > > > > > operation
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a given key-value pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no local-mapping exists
> > for a
> > > > > given
> > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema has a more recent
> > > > version
> > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be validated against the
> latest
> > > > > version
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object doesn't fit to the
> latest
> > > > schema
> > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > depends
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail the operation
> > ('strict'
> > > > > mode)
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a new schema version
> should
> > > be
> > > > > > > > propagated
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server side we usually have no
> > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > classes
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change history is available
> > > and a
> > > > > > tuple
> > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to upgrade any
> received
> > > > tuple
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > last
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow nodes to send
> > > key-value
> > > > > > pairs
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't receive a schema update
> > yet)
> > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > reverting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node with newer classes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the
> same?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Ivan
> > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not ignore history. We
> had
> > a
> > > > > thread
> > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can resume it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00, Denis
> > Magda
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks for
> > > > explaining.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we need to have a
> > separate
> > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms substitution. I'll
> > > > > appreciate
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing pointers to any relevant
> > IEPs
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > reasoning
> > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM
> > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the wording in the IEP
> is
> > a
> > > > > little
> > > > > > > bit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you should not create
> nested
> > > > POJOs,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO that is mapped to a
> > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this correct? Please
> let
> > me
> > > > > know
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the "cache" term, I agree
> > > that
> > > > it
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can replace it with.
> > "Table"
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > tightly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional in our case. Do
> > you
> > > > want
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > create a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM
> > Denis
> > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked the IEP again and
> > > have a
> > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > questions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects and
> > > > > collections
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should either be
> > > > inlined
> > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > schema,
> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL code
> > > snippet
> > > > > > > showing
> > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to work?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep using the terms
> > > "cache"
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right time to discuss an
> > > > alternate
> > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the "table" should
> > stay
> > > > and
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one of the primary
> > APIs
> > > > in
> > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM
> > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your point. I agree
> that
> > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > automatic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last territory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we support
> > automatic
> > > > > > > > evolution,
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a cache without
> schema
> > > and
> > > > > > > > inferring
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other words, we can have both
> > > > > > > > "schema-first"
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59
> AM
> > > > Alexey
> > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got your
> concern
> > > > now.
> > > > > As
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > terminology, I am
> absolutely
> > > fine
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the approach best. Dynamic
> or
> > > > > > evolving
> > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > corresponding changes to
> the
> > > IEP
> > > > > once
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > settle
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в
> 11:33,
> > > Ivan
> > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for your
> answer!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My understanding is a
> > little
> > > > bit
> > > > > > > > > different.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > definitely should be
> > > possible.
> > > > > But
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is updated". I
> > treat a
> > > > > > common
> > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data manipulation
> > > > operations
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > clearly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > interesting capabilities,
> > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > preventing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data operations,
> > > > > > restricting
> > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first means that
> > > > schema
> > > > > > > exists
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is compliant with it -
> > that's
> > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last approach
> > > > mentioned
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is
> inferred
> > > from
> > > > > > data.
> > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing approach?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would like to say,
> > that
> > > > my
> > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > terminology. And I
> suppose
> > if
> > > > it
> > > > > > > > confuses
> > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused as well. My
> > feeling
> > > is
> > > > > > > closer
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47
> GMT+03:00,
> > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an issue
> with
> > > > that.
> > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance and all the
> > stored
> > > > data
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > compliant
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is proposed. There are
> no
> > > > > > > > restrictions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at
> > 9:52
> > > > PM
> > > > > > Ivan
> > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit
> > confused
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > My
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see
> > part
> > > X
> > > > > Semi
> > > > > > > > > > > Structured
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema"
> > > approach
> > > > > as a
> > > > > > > > kind
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53
> > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you
> > > please
> > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case
> > for
> > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so,
> > > what
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
> > > > understanding,
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing
> > something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes, if
> > all
> > > > the
> > > > > > ORM
> > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > internally, then
> they
> > > can
> > > > > > easily
> > > > > > > > > > > translate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE
> > statement
> > > > that
> > > > > > > lists
> > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data
> > integration
> > > is
> > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > based
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be improved once
> > the
> > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of
> > usability
> > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would revise the
> > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say if
> > it's
> > > > > used
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind,
> I'll
> > > > loop
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > long
> > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support for
> > > > Micornaut
> > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came across some
> > > > challenges.
> > > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > > > > watch
> > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite
> 3.0.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020
> > at
> > > > 5:11
> > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally
> speaking, I
> > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the issue
> > if
> > > > > > > duplicate
> > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be
> > created
> > > > for
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > cache,
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the
> schema
> > > > will
> > > > > > > define
> > > > > > > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which fields
> are
> > > > > included
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be
> > compliant
> > > > with
> > > > > > > this,
> > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a set
> of
> > > > > > records,
> > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you
> > > please
> > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case
> > for
> > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so,
> > > what
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
> > > > understanding,
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing
> > something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31,
> 2020
> > at
> > > > > 2:08
> > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would propose
> > > adding
> > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > > point
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to the
> ORM
> > > > > > frameworks
> > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the
> > > storage
> > > > > > engine
> > > > > > > > > > > requires
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones that
> > > > > complicate
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially if a
> > key
> > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > comprises
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice
> if
> > > the
> > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single entity
> > object
> > > > when
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > comes
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a key
> > and
> > > > > > value.
> > > > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the essential
> > > > public
> > > > > > APIs
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > single-entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you
> think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28,
> > 2020
> > > at
> > > > > > 3:50
> > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the big
> > > > changes
> > > > > > > > proposed
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first
> > > > > approach".
> > > > > > To
> > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this
> change:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a
> > look
> > > > and
> > > > > > let
> > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions, or
> > > > > > objections.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >
>

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>]

Michael, thanks for feedback.

1. However, there is no decision approved by the community, but I heard a
lot about it would be nice to have one table\schema per cache.
Actually, we already have CacheGroup, a very useful feature that allows us
to share memory region/persistence files between caches and resolves many
performance issues.
AFAIK, CacheGroup idea will be present in Ignite 3.0, but may be slightly
reworked regarding a new ideology.

Cache with arbitrary objects was always a headache and this is totally
unusable for SQL.
You ask a good question about pure KV-case. I think we could allow users to
create a schemaless table for arbitrary objects, but it will NOT be
possible to use it in SQL.
There is a big question how to serialize arbitrary objects correctly and
effectively. I suggest storing arbitrary objects as byte[] or kind of
blobs.

Looking forward, users will want to access arbitrary fields of such objects
and will need a BinaryObject interface, but on this step we have to deal
with some schema...
So, I think we can go with one of next ways
* treating KV objects as blob/byte[]
* strict schema approach, schema is created and propagated to grid on first
object put and can never be changed until table destroyed.
* use some kind of BinaryObject with a schema in footer, that may have huge
overhead.

2. One can use SQL or SchemaBuilder or generate schema from Class using
annotations.
I thought it should be possible to pass the result of the schema
builder/generator to initial configuration or to createTable(schema)
method.
What kind of script do you mean?

3. Generally, no. With a strict schema mode it is not possible to do it.
With live-schema mode we could make some trivial conversions e.g. int->long
transparently, but change int->date looks impossible for automatic
conversion in run-time.
Offline conversion utils for persistence files look possible for any
changes.

I think the next sequence of user actions can be applied to change field
type:
* Add new_field with new type. This will up a schema version.
* Change mapping on all nodes nodes to write to new_field, but read from
old_field then convert if needed.
This allows the user to read/convert values saved before the rising schema
version.
* Start scan query to copy/convert old_field data to new one. No node will
write with the old schema version at this point.
* Old_field can be safely dropped. This will up the schema version.
* Rename new_field to old_field via change mapping on nodes. Yes, once
again.
Obviously, users may need to update Java classes for this. In fact, they
will do it twice.

Ok, a rename field command should be added to the schema modification API.

4. We don't need BinaryMarshaller with a new approach. What purpose do you
need a BinaryMarshaller for?
5. Yes, strict schema mode is what you are looking for.


On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 10:22 AM Michael Cherkasov <
michael.cherkasov@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I reviewed the mail thread and proposal page and I still don't fully
> understand what is going to be changed, I would really appreciate it if you
> will answer a few questions:
>
> 1. Are you going to leave only one schema per cache? if so, will be there
> an option to have a table with arbitrary objects(pure KV case)?
> 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0 have to define schema? SchemaBuilder
> and SQL only? Is there an option to put the schema definition to the
> configuration?(I really don't like this, I would prefer to have
> separate scripts to create schemas)
> 3. Is there a way to change field type? if yes, can it be done in runtime?
> 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going to be re-worked too, is there any
> IEP for this?
> 5. I don't like automatic schema evaluation when a new field is added
> automatically on record put, so is there a way to prohibit this behavior?
>  I think all schema changes should be done only explicitly except initial
> schema creation.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike.
>
> пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey Mashenkov <andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> >:
>
> > Hi, Igniters.
> >
> > We all know that the current QueryEntity API is not convenient and needs
> to
> > be reworked.
> > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema configuration public API for
> > Ignite 3.0.
> >
> > New schema configuration uses Builder pattern, which looks more
> comfortable
> > to use.
> >
> > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package with the API itself, and a
> draft
> > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
> > and a test that demonstrates how the API could be used.
> >
> > Please note:
> >
> > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with static factory methods.
> > * The implementation is decoupled and can be easily extracted to separate
> > module if we decide to do so.
> > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are missed, they will be added
> lately
> > in separate tickes.
> > * Index configuration extends marker interface that makes possible to
> > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
> > Hopfully, we could add a persistent geo-indices support in future.
> > * Supposedly, current table schema can be changed via builder-like
> > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See 'TableModificationBuilder'
> for
> > details.
> > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have 'toBuilder()' converter for that
> > purpose as it is a Schema Manager responsibility to create mutator
> objects
> > from the current schema,
> > but implementing the Schema manager is out of scope and will be designed
> > within the next task.
> > * Interfaces implementations are out of scope. I did not intend to merge
> > them right now, but for test/demostration purposes.
> >
> > It is NOT the final version and some may be changed before the first
> > release of course.
> > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed with this approach or some
> > issues should be resolved at first.
> >
> > Any thoughts or objections?
> > Are interfaces good enough to be merged within the current ticket?
> >
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <ju...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types:
> > >
> > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
> > > 2. It requires adding new types to the internal representation,
> protocol,
> > > e.t.c.
> > > 3. internal representation should be the same as we keep sign types. So
> > it
> > > will not requires more memory
> > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such types for platforms which not
> > > support unsigned types. For example, a user could derive -6 value in
> Java
> > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits perspective will be right). I
> > think
> > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such cases, especially it will be
> bad
> > > for unsigned long when we require returns BigInteger type.
> > > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix for new types like a
> '250u' -
> > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
> > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive comparison logic for indexes
> > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for expressions. I think it not
> > > possible for the current H2 engine and probably possible for the new
> > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from anybody who involved in this
> part
> > >
> > > WDYT?
> > >
> > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > >
> > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0: once we the actual type
> > > > information, we can make proper runtime adjustments and conversions
> to
> > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will be just a bit more
> expensive.
> > > >
> > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
> > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons and so on are broken
> > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned this somewhere above.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document that SQL is not supported on
> > > those
> > > > > types,
> > > > > end of story.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable request. I thought about this
> > > when
> > > > I
> > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add these types right
> away.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with .NET
> and
> > > C++
> > > > :)
> > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually works as expected, it needs
> > some
> > > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns are false):
> > > > > >
> > > > > >    - It's true that equality check works properly, but for SQL
> > range
> > > > > >    queries it will break unless some special care is taken on
> Java
> > > > side:
> > > > > > for
> > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will be converted to -1,
> > which
> > > > will
> > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we don't have unsigned types now,
> I
> > > > doubt
> > > > > it
> > > > > >    works.
> > > > > >    - There is an obvious cross-platform data loss when
> "intuitive"
> > > type
> > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8 corresponds to byte type in
> .NET,
> > > but
> > > > to
> > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have to use short type in Java,
> > and
> > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >    will also need to take care of the range check during
> > > > serialization).
> > > > > I
> > > > > >    think we can even allow to try to deserialize a value into
> > > arbitrary
> > > > > > type,
> > > > > >    but throw an exception if the range is out of bounds.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
> > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once all the details are
> > settled
> > > > > here?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't be treated correctly
> for
> > > now
> > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think we could make "true" support for unsigned types, but
> they
> > > > will
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
> > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map uint64 to Java long
> > > primitive,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > BigInteger only.
> > > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64 to Java long, but treat
> > > negative
> > > > > > > values in a different way to preserve correct ordering.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > These limitations will affect only mixed environments when .Net
> > and
> > > > > Java
> > > > > > > used to access the data.
> > > > > > > Will this solution address your issues?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with .NET
> > and
> > > > C++
> > > > > :)
> > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as cache keys and values, as
> > > fields
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > properties,
> > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y clauses) - it works
> > > > > transparently
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > the users.
> > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats those values as
> > corresponding
> > > > > signed
> > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in some cases only because
> > there
> > > > are
> > > > > no
> > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very simple change to the
> protocol
> > -
> > > > add
> > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as signed counterparts.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise representation is
> the
> > > > same)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a uByte field and map it
> > to
> > > > > > 'uint8'
> > > > > > > > > column.
> > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to "250" and put the object
> > into a
> > > > > > table,
> > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a single byte 'int8' column.
> > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it to directly the Java
> > > object
> > > > > > field
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8 type to Java 'short'
> type
> > > > > > > > > because the one expected to see "250" as a value which
> > doesn't
> > > > fit
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > signed type.
> > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a BigInteger field in Java.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat column value as Java 'byte' as
> > is,
> > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a negative value, so it should
> be
> > > cast
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > short
> > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger for uint64)
> > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will require a different
> comparator.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a good idea.
> > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the simple approach I
> > described?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing range for unsigned types
> > then
> > > we
> > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > add a
> > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on schema level (like
> > > > nullability
> > > > > > > flag)
> > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types in storage.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate storage type-system and
> > binary
> > > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of type will match 1 to 1
> with
> > > > > storage
> > > > > > > > > (native)
> > > > > > > > > > > type.
> > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either have a separate type id or
> > > treat
> > > > > > > > > serialized
> > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed or unsigned flag).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever foresee the consequences of
> > > using
> > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned types perfectly works
> > with
> > > > some
> > > > > > > > > database,
> > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite successor confession with our
> > > > > "native"
> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he can use the power of Ignite
> > > > Compute
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either fail to use his unsigned
> > data
> > > > on
> > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > due
> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due to natural Java type system
> > > > > > limitations
> > > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively supported types with possible
> > value
> > > > > > ranges
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
> > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is what trade-off we found
> > > acceptable:
> > > > > > > > narrowing
> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use types of wider range on
> > systems
> > > > like
> > > > > > > Java.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor Sapego <
> > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so hard to implement
> > > comparison
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not seem to be a big
> issue
> > > > from
> > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned types from Java - I
> think,
> > > if
> > > > a
> > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to interact with it from
> Java
> > he
> > > > > knows
> > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from platforms where they
> have
> > > > native
> > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > widely
> > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where users currently have
> > to
> > > > > make a
> > > > > > > > > manual
> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > > casting
> > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using unsigned types when they use
> > > > Ignite.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for those types (basically,
> > just
> > > > add
> > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise
> representation
> > > is
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > same)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned integers, so we can
> > > > simply
> > > > > > say
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative comparison is not supported
> > in
> > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > (equality
> > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have i8 or int8 instead of
> > > > Integer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't address the issue.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types should be portable across
> > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > systems
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type support.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is that unsigned types cover
> > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > ranges.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to introduce a uLong.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big deal to add uLong type
> > > > support
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > storage
> > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and then use it in e.g.
> > .Net
> > > > > only.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support it in e.g. Java?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range is about (2^-63 ..
> > > 2^63)
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > range
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to restrict range to (0 ..
> > > > 2^63).
> > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but doesn't look like a
> > > 'real'
> > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse when the user will use
> > > uByte,
> > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > limitation
> > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map unsigned types to a
> > type
> > > of
> > > > > > wider
> > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative values. E.g. uLong to
> > > > > BigInteger.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive Java type for Long
> here.
> > > > > > However,
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8 bytes, but have a
> > > special
> > > > > > > > comparator
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid unwanted deserialization.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of "long, short, byte" in
> > the
> > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style, which is concise and
> > > > > unambiguous:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM Igor Sapego <
> > > > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support that. Also, if we are
> aiming
> > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger platform-independance,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may want to support
> > > bit-notation
> > > > > > > (int32,
> > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a different type on different
> > > > > platforms
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often when using ODBC for
> > example).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM Pavel
> Tupitsyn
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should support unsigned data
> > types:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have them, but many other
> > > languages
> > > > > do,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing number of thin clients
> > > this
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in current Ignite.NET
> > > implementation
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain when it comes to
> > > > metadata,
> > > > > > > binary
> > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to deserialize int as uint when
> > you
> > > > > have
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > class,
> > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM Andrey
> > > > Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both serializers use
> reflection
> > > > API.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will allow users to configure
> > > > static
> > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > along
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still need to validate
> user
> > > > > classes
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > client
> > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in the grid  and
> > reflection
> > > > API
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few articles on the
> internet
> > > on
> > > > > how
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task for supporting
> GraalVM,
> > > and
> > > > > > maybe
> > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM will suggest a
> > solution
> > > > or
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is found, we could allow
> > > users
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I don't think it is a
> good
> > > idea
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > expose
> > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the public.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM Denis
> > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the update,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the serializers take into
> > > > > > consideration
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native-image-generation feature of
> > GraalVM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current binary marshaller, we
> > > can't
> > > > > even
> > > > > > > > > > generate
> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using our thin client
> APIs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM Andrey
> > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to continue discussion of
> > IEP-54
> > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who is interested had a
> > > > chance
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to ask
> > questions
> > > > and
> > > > > > > share
> > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a prototype of
> serializer
> > > [2]
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I compared 2 approaches
> to
> > > > > > > > (de)serialize
> > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java reflection/unsafe API and
> > > similar
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second one generates
> serializer
> > > for
> > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library for compilation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows better results in
> > > > > benchmarks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go with it as default
> > > > > serializer
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation as a fallback if
> someone
> > > > will
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of tasks under the
> > > > > umbrella
> > > > > > > > ticket
> > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to create more tickets
> > for
> > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > manager
> > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation, but would like to
> > clarify
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > details.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought schemaManager on each node
> > > should
> > > > > > held:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping of "schema
> version"
> > > <-->
> > > > > > > > validated
> > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide schema changes
> > history.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client side. Before any
> > key-value
> > > > API
> > > > > > > > > operation
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a given key-value pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no local-mapping exists
> > for a
> > > > > given
> > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema has a more recent
> > > > version
> > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be validated against the
> latest
> > > > > version
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object doesn't fit to the
> latest
> > > > schema
> > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > depends
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail the operation
> > ('strict'
> > > > > mode)
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a new schema version
> should
> > > be
> > > > > > > > propagated
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server side we usually have no
> > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > classes
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change history is available
> > > and a
> > > > > > tuple
> > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to upgrade any
> received
> > > > tuple
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > last
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow nodes to send
> > > key-value
> > > > > > pairs
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't receive a schema update
> > yet)
> > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > reverting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node with newer classes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the
> same?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Ivan
> > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not ignore history. We
> had
> > a
> > > > > thread
> > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can resume it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00, Denis
> > Magda
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks for
> > > > explaining.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we need to have a
> > separate
> > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms substitution. I'll
> > > > > appreciate
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing pointers to any relevant
> > IEPs
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > reasoning
> > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM
> > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the wording in the IEP
> is
> > a
> > > > > little
> > > > > > > bit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you should not create
> nested
> > > > POJOs,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO that is mapped to a
> > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this correct? Please
> let
> > me
> > > > > know
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the "cache" term, I agree
> > > that
> > > > it
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can replace it with.
> > "Table"
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > tightly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional in our case. Do
> > you
> > > > want
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > create a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM
> > Denis
> > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked the IEP again and
> > > have a
> > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > questions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects and
> > > > > collections
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should either be
> > > > inlined
> > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > schema,
> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL code
> > > snippet
> > > > > > > showing
> > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to work?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep using the terms
> > > "cache"
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right time to discuss an
> > > > alternate
> > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the "table" should
> > stay
> > > > and
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one of the primary
> > APIs
> > > > in
> > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM
> > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your point. I agree
> that
> > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > automatic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last territory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we support
> > automatic
> > > > > > > > evolution,
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a cache without
> schema
> > > and
> > > > > > > > inferring
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other words, we can have both
> > > > > > > > "schema-first"
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59
> AM
> > > > Alexey
> > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got your
> concern
> > > > now.
> > > > > As
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > terminology, I am
> absolutely
> > > fine
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the approach best. Dynamic
> or
> > > > > > evolving
> > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > corresponding changes to
> the
> > > IEP
> > > > > once
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > settle
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в
> 11:33,
> > > Ivan
> > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for your
> answer!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My understanding is a
> > little
> > > > bit
> > > > > > > > > different.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > definitely should be
> > > possible.
> > > > > But
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is updated". I
> > treat a
> > > > > > common
> > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data manipulation
> > > > operations
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > clearly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > interesting capabilities,
> > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > preventing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data operations,
> > > > > > restricting
> > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first means that
> > > > schema
> > > > > > > exists
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is compliant with it -
> > that's
> > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last approach
> > > > mentioned
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is
> inferred
> > > from
> > > > > > data.
> > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing approach?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would like to say,
> > that
> > > > my
> > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > terminology. And I
> suppose
> > if
> > > > it
> > > > > > > > confuses
> > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused as well. My
> > feeling
> > > is
> > > > > > > closer
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47
> GMT+03:00,
> > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an issue
> with
> > > > that.
> > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance and all the
> > stored
> > > > data
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > compliant
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is proposed. There are
> no
> > > > > > > > restrictions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at
> > 9:52
> > > > PM
> > > > > > Ivan
> > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit
> > confused
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > My
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see
> > part
> > > X
> > > > > Semi
> > > > > > > > > > > Structured
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema"
> > > approach
> > > > > as a
> > > > > > > > kind
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53
> > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you
> > > please
> > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case
> > for
> > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so,
> > > what
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
> > > > understanding,
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing
> > something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes, if
> > all
> > > > the
> > > > > > ORM
> > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > internally, then
> they
> > > can
> > > > > > easily
> > > > > > > > > > > translate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE
> > statement
> > > > that
> > > > > > > lists
> > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data
> > integration
> > > is
> > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > based
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be improved once
> > the
> > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of
> > usability
> > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would revise the
> > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say if
> > it's
> > > > > used
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind,
> I'll
> > > > loop
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > long
> > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support for
> > > > Micornaut
> > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came across some
> > > > challenges.
> > > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > > > > watch
> > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite
> 3.0.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020
> > at
> > > > 5:11
> > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally
> speaking, I
> > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the issue
> > if
> > > > > > > duplicate
> > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be
> > created
> > > > for
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > cache,
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the
> schema
> > > > will
> > > > > > > define
> > > > > > > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which fields
> are
> > > > > included
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be
> > compliant
> > > > with
> > > > > > > this,
> > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a set
> of
> > > > > > records,
> > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you
> > > please
> > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case
> > for
> > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so,
> > > what
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
> > > > understanding,
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing
> > something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31,
> 2020
> > at
> > > > > 2:08
> > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would propose
> > > adding
> > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > > point
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to the
> ORM
> > > > > > frameworks
> > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the
> > > storage
> > > > > > engine
> > > > > > > > > > > requires
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones that
> > > > > complicate
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially if a
> > key
> > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > comprises
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice
> if
> > > the
> > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single entity
> > object
> > > > when
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > comes
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a key
> > and
> > > > > > value.
> > > > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the essential
> > > > public
> > > > > > APIs
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > single-entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you
> think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28,
> > 2020
> > > at
> > > > > > 3:50
> > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the big
> > > > changes
> > > > > > > > proposed
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first
> > > > > approach".
> > > > > > To
> > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this
> change:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a
> > look
> > > > and
> > > > > > let
> > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions, or
> > > > > > objections.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >
>


-- 
Best regards,
Andrey V. Mashenkov

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>]

Hi Ignites,

I've made 2 PRs with different approaches for writing rows in a compact way.
Both approached imply using a different format for different row sizes.

* the first one is similar to what we have now: the exact target row size
is calculated, then the row is written to the byte[].
String characters are analyzed to calculate exact row size.

* the second one: write a row to a byte[] then compact it if possible.
Row size is estimated, to reduce row buffer expanding, So, no string
analysis is needed, string length is just multiplied by 2.

Benchmark results are attached to a ticket. [1]

I've found
* Latin1 string serialization is costly (about x20) comparing to byte[]
regardless the approach described above.
* Non-latin string (when contains char coded into >1 byte) costs even more
(~ x30-x40)
* Writing string to a byte[] at first with String.toBytes(), then writing
it to row shows much better performance.
Actually, String.toBytes() is a highly optimized method and for 'latin1'
strings benchmarks show similar performance as for byte[] columns.
This result looks expected as no character conversion is required. However,
using CharsetEncoder.encode() for the same purpose, shows much worse (x20
times) results.

Sadly, JVM offers no other way to write String into a buffer or stream than
CharsetEncoder.
So, we can either accept x2-20 (latin and non-latin strings) times worse
performance or be ok with additional allocations.

Overall, marshaling time difference for other types looks insignificant
comparing to strings.

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14743

On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 4:13 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <il...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello!
>
> This makes sense, Andrey.
>
> I also think that we may skip 2-byte lengths.
> If the variable length fields section is larger than 255 bytes then we may
> just always use 4 byte lengths, because their length becomes irrelevant
> after a few kb of data stored.
>
> So we may just have 1-byte addressing for small objects and 4-byte
> addressing for larger ones.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Regards,
> --
> Ilya Kasnacheev
>
>
> чт, 10 июн. 2021 г. в 15:36, Andrey Mashenkov <andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> >:
>
> > Hi Ilya,
> >
> > Thanks for the answer. I like the idea with "re-packing".
> > You suggest re-pack to larger sizes, that can cause up to 4 array
> copying,
> > however, this could be improved.
> >
> > We can start with 4-bytes offset.
> > Then once we have finish writing a chunk (key or value), we check if
> > offsets fits into smaller type,
> > then compact vartable and shift chunk data.
> >
> > If we will write 'sizes' instead 'offsets' or write relative offsets
> (e.g.
> > from data block begin), then we'll not need to recalculate them. but just
> > convert the types.
> > We'll not need to create a new array for shifting the data.
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 12:40 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello!
> > >
> > > If we have determined that next varstring is too long to fit in 1-2
> bytes
> > > index, we can re-pack the whole object from scratch with 2-4 bytes
> index.
> > >
> > > Such as:
> > >
> > > We write all fixlen fields in the beginning.
> > > We start to write first varlen string. Accumulated len is <255 so we
> use
> > > single byte length
> > > We start to write second varlen string. Accumulated len is now >255 but
> > > <64k so we re-pack the first varlen string with 2 byte length also.
> > > We start to write third varlen (let's say it's byte[] blob).
> Accumulated
> > > len is suddenly >64k so we re-pack already written varlen fields to
> use 4
> > > byte lengths/offsets.
> > >
> > > The overhead here is not as great as you could expect. When reading, we
> > > already know total varlen fields section length so we also know how
> many
> > > bytes size offsets take.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > >
> > >
> > > вт, 25 мая 2021 г. в 16:40, Andrey Mashenkov <
> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > >:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I never said that you can predict string size.
> > > >
> > > > You suggest to use offsets use 1-2-4 bytes based on overall varlen
> > > section
> > > > size.
> > > > Actually, we can't predict varlen section size if a string column
> > defined
> > > > before serializing strings.
> > > >
> > > > Do you suggest use the smallest possible offset size if no columns of
> > > > string type are defined,
> > > > but fallback to 4-byte if a string column goes into play?
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 6:59 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello!
> > > > >
> > > > > I never said that you can predict string size. Strings are
> definitely
> > > > > varlen. You don't know string length when looking at object
> schema, I
> > > > don't
> > > > > even see why char-to-byte mapping is relevant here.
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think about the approach where offsets use 1-2-4 bytes
> > > based
> > > > on
> > > > > overall varlen section size, which is known in advance as I assume?
> > > > >
> > > > > With compression, some optimizations may be possible since you can
> > > > compress
> > > > > blocks of data and then concatenate these compressed fragments. So
> > you
> > > > can
> > > > > say that "I want 40-th byte of 3rd fragment" but it sounds like an
> > > > overkill
> > > > > mostly.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > --
> > > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > чт, 20 мая 2021 г. в 18:23, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Ilya,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not yet, we can't predict string size [1] as a character may be
> > > encoded
> > > > > in
> > > > > > 1-4 bytes.
> > > > > > So, we could either use a heuristic or serialize every string
> into
> > an
> > > > > array
> > > > > > at first then assemble a row and copy the array into the row
> > buffer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Good point, we can skip vartable for the first varlen field.
> > > > > > We have a similar ticket [2] for the case with a single varlen.
> > I'll
> > > > fix
> > > > > > the description to omit a first varlen offset.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Agree, compression looks tricky and ineffective in this case.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4385623/bytes-of-a-string-in-java/4385653
> > > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14746
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 5:58 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > > > ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How about:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > First, all fields for which we know their specific order and
> size
> > > go,
> > > > > > such
> > > > > > > as byte, short, int, long, boolean. This means that any short
> > field
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > take just 2 bytes with no padding.
> > > > > > > Then, all var-len fields go, such as nested object, strings,
> etc.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > After that, we know total object size already, right?
> > > > > > > If size <= 256, then all offsets are 1 byte unsigned.
> > > > > > > If size < 65k, then all offsets are 2 byte.
> > > > > > > Else, all offsets are 4 byte.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We can count offsets starting from the first byle after
> constant
> > > > fields
> > > > > > > section and offsets section.
> > > > > > > For the first varlen field, the offset is always 0, so we may
> > skip
> > > > this
> > > > > > one
> > > > > > > and start with offset of the second var field.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For compression it is trickier. I suggest not having any
> explicit
> > > > > support
> > > > > > > for compression right here, so that later on compression may
> use
> > a
> > > > > > > different object layout to be more efficient.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ср, 19 мая 2021 г. в 16:43, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've create a ticket [1] for large row support.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We use 2-bytes offsets for varlen fields that are supposed to
> > be
> > > > > large
> > > > > > > > enough.
> > > > > > > > AFAIK, some users use multi-MB values and 64k per Row looks
> > like
> > > a
> > > > > > strong
> > > > > > > > limitation.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, we have either to increase offset_size up to 4-bytes or
> use
> > > > some
> > > > > > > > advanced mechanics for compression or adaptive offset_size.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1. Increasing offset size may add overhead for keys like
> next:
> > > > > > > > class Key {
> > > > > > > >    int id;
> > > > > > > >    String str; // Some short string code.
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2. Compression will require table to be decompressed on every
> > > > varlen
> > > > > > > column
> > > > > > > > access, e.g. for comparison purposes while index scan.
> > > > > > > > Also, we may need to pre-calculate compressed table size to
> > avoid
> > > > > > buffer
> > > > > > > > copying (shrinking or extending) during row assembling.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 3. Adaptive offset_size implies row size estimation.
> > > > > > > > We already do to reduce the probability of buffer expanding,
> > but
> > > we
> > > > > > need
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > high margin for this purpose.
> > > > > > > > 'String' values size is a hard part as String character may
> be
> > > > > encoded
> > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > 1-4 bytes depending on Charset.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Usually, a user don't want to care about Column length
> > limitation
> > > > and
> > > > > > > chars
> > > > > > > > collation.
> > > > > > > > So, we can expect a Java default behavior will be used in
> most
> > > > cases:
> > > > > > > > 'unlimited' string size with up to 4-bytes characters
> support.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Possible strategies
> > > > > > > > 3.1 Introduce 'Collation' for string and validate all the
> chars
> > > on
> > > > > row
> > > > > > > > assembling and rely on the user limited column length.
> > > > > > > > Thus, we can use varlen limits (+ collation for strings) to
> > > > estimate
> > > > > > row
> > > > > > > > size and pre-calculate offset_size to keep it within the
> > schema.
> > > > > > > > 3.2 Introduce more row flags for different offset sizes
> (byte,
> > > > short,
> > > > > > > int)
> > > > > > > > and calculate row size right before assembling for choosing
> > > > > appropriate
> > > > > > > > offset_size.
> > > > > > > > Heuristics for strings using collation is also applicable
> here
> > > and
> > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > algorithm complexity independent from the data length, but
> the
> > > > schema
> > > > > > > only.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I like an approach '3.2' because we already estimate row
> size.
> > > > > > > > Any thoughts?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14743
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 7:25 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > I've prepared PR [1] with Public Table API for final
> review.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Main points
> > > > > > > > > There are 4 projection interfaces over Table for different
> > > > > use-cases
> > > > > > > > > (Plain record vs Key-Value and POJO vs Binary object)
> > declaring
> > > > > > > > synchronous
> > > > > > > > > and asynchronous methods.
> > > > > > > > > Async method returns IgniteFuture as there is no consensus
> on
> > > > > > > > IgniteFuture
> > > > > > > > > vs JDK CompletableFuture yet.
> > > > > > > > > API implementation is incomplete, it just an example of how
> > it
> > > > > could
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > done and will be implemented in future tasks.
> > > > > > > > > Tuple/TupleAssembler renamed to Row/RowAssembler. Now Tuple
> > is
> > > > > just a
> > > > > > > > > dictionary representing a subset of columns, while Row is a
> > > > > > > schema-aware
> > > > > > > > > object containing key and value columns respectively to the
> > > data
> > > > > > > layout.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:26 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> I see, thanks.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Let's discuss the return type - Future is not the one to
> > use.
> > > > > > > > >> We should return CompletionStage, CompletableFuture, or
> > > > introduce
> > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > >> interface.
> > > > > > > > >> We agreed on the last one (custom interface) for thin
> > clients:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/IEP-51-Java-Thin-Client-Async-API-td48900.html
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> I believe that for Ignite 3.0 we should have the
> following:
> > > > > > > > >> public interface IgniteFuture<T> extends Future<T>,
> > > > > > > CompletionStage<T> {
> > > > > > > > >>     // No-op.
> > > > > > > > >> }
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Thoughts?
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:16 AM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > >> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > >> > There are 2 PR's for the ticket[1] with two different
> APIs
> > > > > > > suggested.
> > > > > > > > >> > Please, take a look at PR [2].
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14035
> > > > > > > > >> > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/69
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:11 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > Andrey, I can't find any async methods,
> > > > > > > > >> > > can you please check if the changes are pushed?
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 10:06 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > >> > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > Pavel, good point.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > Thanks. I've added async methods.
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 2:29 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > >> ptupitsyn@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > What about corresponding async APIs, do we add
> them
> > > now
> > > > or
> > > > > > > > later?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 8:11 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi Igniters.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I've created a PR for Table access API [1].
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > This is an initial version. So, any
> > > > > suggestions\objections
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > >> > > > welcomed.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to write your comments
> > > and\or
> > > > > > > examples
> > > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > PR.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Ignite-api module contains API classes, e.g.
> > > TableView
> > > > > > > classes
> > > > > > > > >> as
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > projections for a table for different purposes.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Ignite-table contains dummy implementation and
> > > Example
> > > > > > class
> > > > > > > > >> > > explained
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > how
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > it is supposed to be used.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Also, I'm still waiting for any feedback for
> > Schema
> > > > > > > > >> configuration
> > > > > > > > >> > > > public
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > API PR [2].
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/33
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:05 PM Andrey
> Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I've updated a PR regarding your feedback [1].
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:58 AM Alexey
> > Goncharuk
> > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Folks,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I updated the IEP to contain the missing
> > pieces;
> > > > > > > actually,
> > > > > > > > >> most
> > > > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> questions here were covered by the text.
> Please
> > > let
> > > > > me
> > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > >> if
> > > > > > > > >> > > there
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> something still missing or unclear.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> чт, 31 дек. 2020 г. в 12:48, Alexey
> Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Mikhail and Igniters,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Thanks for your comments. The questions are
> > > > > > reasonable,
> > > > > > > > >> > though I
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > think
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> all
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > concerns are addressed by the IEP as Val
> > > > > mentioned. I
> > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > >> > > update
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > document according to your questions in the
> > > > > following
> > > > > > > > week
> > > > > > > > >> or
> > > > > > > > >> > > so,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > so
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> can
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > have a constructive discussion further.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > ср, 30 дек. 2020 г. в 11:45, Michael
> > Cherkasov
> > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > michael.cherkasov@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Hi Val, Andrey,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> thank you for clarifying.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> I still have a few comments.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 1. one table == one schema. KV vs SQL:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Looks like all agreed that KV is just a
> > > special
> > > > > case
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> > > regular
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > table
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> with (blob,blob) schema.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> I worry about the case when the user
> starts
> > > from
> > > > > KV
> > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > later
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> try
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to expand it and try to leverage SQL for
> the
> > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > KV
> > > > > > > > >> > table
> > > > > > > > >> > > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> won't be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> able to do so and will require to reload
> > data.
> > > > > which
> > > > > > > > isn't
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > convenient
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> sometimes not even possible. Is it
> possible
> > to
> > > > > > > extract a
> > > > > > > > >> new
> > > > > > > > >> > > > field
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> (blob, blob) schema and apply index on it?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 2. Could you please also list all ways of
> > > schema
> > > > > > > > >> definition
> > > > > > > > >> > in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> IEP? It
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> significant change and I bet the main
> point
> > of
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > IEP,
> > > > > > > > >> > > everyone
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > hates
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> QueryEntities, they are difficult to
> manage
> > > and
> > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> general,
> > > > > > > > >> > > it's
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > very
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> confusing to have a data model(schemas)
> and
> > > > > > > node/cluster
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > configuration
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> one place.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> So there will be SchemaBuilder and SQL to
> > > define
> > > > > > > > schemas,
> > > > > > > > >> but
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Andrey
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> also
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> mentioned annotations.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> I personally against configuration via
> > > > > annotations,
> > > > > > > > while
> > > > > > > > >> > it's
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> convenient
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> for development, it difficult to manage
> > > because
> > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > >> > > classes
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > can
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> deployed on different clients/servers
> nodes
> > > and
> > > > it
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > >> lead
> > > > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> unpredictable results.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 3. IEP doesn't mention field type changes,
> > > only
> > > > > > > drop/add
> > > > > > > > >> > > fields.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Field
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> type
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> changes are extremely painful right now(if
> > > even
> > > > > > > > >> possible), so
> > > > > > > > >> > > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> nice if some scenarios would be
> > supported(like
> > > > > > > > >> int8->int16,
> > > > > > > > >> > or
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> int8->String).
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 4. got it, I thought IEP will have more
> > > details
> > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> implementation.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> I've seen Andrey even sent benchmark
> results
> > > > for a
> > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > serialization,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> ping him about this.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 5. Thanks for the clarification. I had a
> > wrong
> > > > > > > > >> understanding
> > > > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > strick
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> mode.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> вт, 29 дек. 2020 г. в 19:32, Valentin
> > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Hi Mike,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Thanks for providing your feedback.
> Please
> > > see
> > > > > my
> > > > > > > > >> comments
> > > > > > > > >> > > > below.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > I would also encourage you to go through
> > the
> > > > > > IEP-54
> > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > >> -
> > > > > > > > >> > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > has
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> lot
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > detail on the topic.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > [1]
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > -Val
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:22 PM Michael
> > > > > > Cherkasov <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > michael.cherkasov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > I reviewed the mail thread and
> proposal
> > > page
> > > > > > and I
> > > > > > > > >> still
> > > > > > > > >> > > > don't
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> fully
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > understand what is going to be
> changed,
> > I
> > > > > would
> > > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > appreciate
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> if
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > will answer a few questions:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 1. Are you going to leave only one
> > schema
> > > > per
> > > > > > > cache?
> > > > > > > > >> if
> > > > > > > > >> > so,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > will
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> there
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > an option to have a table with
> arbitrary
> > > > > > > > objects(pure
> > > > > > > > >> KV
> > > > > > > > >> > > > case)?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > My opinion is that KV case should be
> > > natively
> > > > > > > > >> supported. I
> > > > > > > > >> > > > think
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> still
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > needs to be thought over, my current
> view
> > on
> > > > > this
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> that
> > > > > > > > >> > we
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > should
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> have
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > separate APIs for KV and more generic
> > > > storages.
> > > > > KV
> > > > > > > > >> storage
> > > > > > > > >> > > can
> > > > > > > > >> > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > implemented as a "table" with two BLOB
> > > fields
> > > > > > where
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > > > >> > > > store
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > serialized key-value pairs. That would
> > imply
> > > > > > > > >> > deserialization
> > > > > > > > >> > > on
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > read,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> but I
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > believe this is OK for KV use cases. I'm
> > > happy
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > hear
> > > > > > > > >> > other
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > ideas
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> though
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > :)
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0
> > > have
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > define
> > > > > > > > >> > > schema?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > SchemaBuilder
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > and SQL only? Is there an option to
> put
> > > the
> > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > >> > > definition
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > configuration?(I really don't like
> > this, I
> > > > > would
> > > > > > > > >> prefer
> > > > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > have
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > separate scripts to create schemas)
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > There will be no such thing as a static
> > > > > > > configuration
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > first
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> place.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Tables and schemas are created in
> runtime.
> > > > Even
> > > > > if
> > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > >> > is a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > file
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> provided
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > on node startup, this file is only
> applied
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > scope
> > > > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 'start'
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > operation. All configurations will be
> > stored
> > > > in
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > meta
> > > > > > > > >> > > storage
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> available to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > all nodes, as opposed to individual
> files.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 3. Is there a way to change field
> type?
> > if
> > > > > yes,
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > >> it be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > done
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > runtime?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Absolutely! IEP-54 has a whole section
> > about
> > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > >> > > evolution.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is
> going
> > to
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> re-worked
> > > > > > > > >> > > too,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> there
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> any
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > IEP for this?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > BinaryMarshaller as a tool for arbitrary
> > > > object
> > > > > > > > >> > serialization
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > will
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> gone,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > but we will reuse a lot of its concept
> to
> > > > > > implement
> > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > >> > > internal
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > tuple
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > serialization mechanism. IEP-54 has the
> > > > > > description
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > proposed
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> data
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > format.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 5. I don't like automatic schema
> > > evaluation
> > > > > > when a
> > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > >> > > field
> > > > > > > > >> > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> added
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > automatically on record put, so is
> > there a
> > > > way
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > prohibit
> > > > > > > > >> > > > this
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> behavior?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >  I think all schema changes should be
> > done
> > > > > only
> > > > > > > > >> > explicitly
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > except
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> initial
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > schema creation.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > The way I see it is that we should have
> > two
> > > > > modes:
> > > > > > > > >> > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > schema-last. Schema-first means exactly
> > what
> > > > > > you've
> > > > > > > > >> > > described -
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> schemas
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> are
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > defined and updated explicitly by the
> > user.
> > > In
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > schema-last
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > mode,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > the user does not deal with schemas, as
> > they
> > > > are
> > > > > > > > >> inferred
> > > > > > > > >> > > from
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> data
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > inserted into tables. We should
> definitely
> > > not
> > > > > mix
> > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > >> > > modes
> > > > > > > > >> > > > -
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> has
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > be one or another. And it probably makes
> > > sense
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> discuss
> > > > > > > > >> > > which
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > mode
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> should
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > be the default one.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Mike.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey
> > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Hi, Igniters.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > We all know that the current
> > QueryEntity
> > > > API
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > convenient
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > needs
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > be reworked.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with
> > schema
> > > > > > > > >> configuration
> > > > > > > > >> > > > public
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Ignite 3.0.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > New schema configuration uses
> Builder
> > > > > pattern,
> > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > >> > > looks
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > more
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > comfortable
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > to use.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > In the PR you will find a 'schema'
> > > package
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> API
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > itself,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > draft
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > implementation in 'internal'
> > > sub-package,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and a test that demonstrates how the
> > API
> > > > > could
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> used.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Please note:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders'
> class
> > > > with
> > > > > > > static
> > > > > > > > >> > > factory
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> methods.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * The implementation is decoupled
> and
> > > can
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > easily
> > > > > > > > >> > > > extracted
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > separate
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > module if we decide to do so.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Some columns types (e.g.
> Date/Time)
> > > are
> > > > > > > missed,
> > > > > > > > >> they
> > > > > > > > >> > > will
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> added
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > lately
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > in separate tickes.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Index configuration extends marker
> > > > > interface
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> > makes
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> possible
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > implement indexes of new types in
> > > plugins.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Hopfully, we could add a persistent
> > > > > > geo-indices
> > > > > > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > >> > > in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> future.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Supposedly, current table schema
> can
> > > be
> > > > > > > changed
> > > > > > > > >> via
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> builder-like
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > structure as it is done if JOOQ
> > project.
> > > > See
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 'TableModificationBuilder'
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > details.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should
> have
> > > > > > > > 'toBuilder()'
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > converter
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> that
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > purpose as it is a Schema Manager
> > > > > > responsibility
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > create
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> mutator
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > objects
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > from the current schema,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > but implementing the Schema manager
> is
> > > out
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > scope
> > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > will
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > designed
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > within the next task.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Interfaces implementations are out
> > of
> > > > > > scope. I
> > > > > > > > did
> > > > > > > > >> > not
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > intend
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > merge
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > them right now, but for
> > > test/demostration
> > > > > > > > purposes.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > It is NOT the final version and some
> > may
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > changed
> > > > > > > > >> > > before
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> first
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > release of course.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > For now, we have to agree if we can
> > > > proceed
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > >> this
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> some
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > issues should be resolved at first.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Any thoughts or objections?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Are interfaces good enough to be
> > merged
> > > > > within
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > current
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> ticket?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM
> Юрий <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> jury.gerzhedowich@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > A little bit my thoughts about
> > > unsigned
> > > > > > types:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 1. Seems we may support unsign
> types
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 2. It requires adding new types to
> > the
> > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > representation,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > protocol,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > e.t.c.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 3. internal representation should
> be
> > > the
> > > > > > same
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > >> we
> > > > > > > > >> > > keep
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > sign
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> types.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > So
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > will not requires more memory
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 4. User should be aware of
> specifics
> > > > such
> > > > > > > types
> > > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > platforms
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> which
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > not
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > support unsigned types. For
> > example, a
> > > > > user
> > > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > >> > > derive
> > > > > > > > >> > > > -6
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> value
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from
> > bits
> > > > > > > > perspective
> > > > > > > > >> > will
> > > > > > > > >> > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> right). I
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > think
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > We shouldn't use more wide type
> for
> > > such
> > > > > > > cases,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > especially
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> will be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > bad
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for unsigned long when we require
> > > > returns
> > > > > > > > >> BigInteger
> > > > > > > > >> > > > type.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 5. Possible it requires some
> > > > > suffix/preffix
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> new
> > > > > > > > >> > > types
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > '250u' -
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > it means that 250 is an unsigned
> > value
> > > > > type.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 6. It requires a little bit more
> > > > expensive
> > > > > > > > >> comparison
> > > > > > > > >> > > > logic
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > indexes
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 7. It requires new comparison
> logic
> > > for
> > > > > > > > >> expressions.
> > > > > > > > >> > I
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > think
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> not
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > possible for the current H2 engine
> > and
> > > > > > > probably
> > > > > > > > >> > > possible
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> new
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Calcite engine. Need clarification
> > > from
> > > > > > > anybody
> > > > > > > > >> who
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > involved
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> this
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > part
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36,
> Alexey
> > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Actually, we can support
> > comparisons
> > > > in
> > > > > > 3.0:
> > > > > > > > >> once
> > > > > > > > >> > we
> > > > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> actual
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > type
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > information, we can make proper
> > > > runtime
> > > > > > > > >> adjustments
> > > > > > > > >> > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> conversions
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > treat those values as unsigned -
> > it
> > > > will
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> just a
> > > > > > > > >> > > bit
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > more
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > expensive.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32,
> > Pavel
> > > > > > > Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > SQL range queries it will
> > break
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong
> > > > results
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality
> > > > > > comparisons
> > > > > > > > >> and so
> > > > > > > > >> > > on
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > are
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> broken
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > for unsigned data types, I
> > think I
> > > > > > > mentioned
> > > > > > > > >> this
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > somewhere
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > above.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can
> > > > document
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> SQL is
> > > > > > > > >> > > not
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> supported
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > on
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > those
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > types,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > end of story.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25
> PM
> > > > Alexey
> > > > > > > > >> Goncharuk
> > > > > > > > >> > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Folks, I think this is a
> > > > reasonable
> > > > > > > > >> request. I
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > thought
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> about
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > this
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > when
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but
> > > > hesitated
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > >> > these
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > types
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> right
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > away.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > That is how it works in
> > Ignite
> > > > > since
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > beginning
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> .NET
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > C++
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > :)
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I have some doubts that it
> > > > actually
> > > > > > > works
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > expected,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> needs
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > some
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > checking (will be glad if my
> > > > > concerns
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > >> > false):
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - It's true that equality
> > > check
> > > > > > works
> > > > > > > > >> > > properly,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > but
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> SQL
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > range
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    queries it will break
> > unless
> > > > some
> > > > > > > > special
> > > > > > > > >> > care
> > > > > > > > >> > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> taken
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> on
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > side:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java
> > > > > (byte)255
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > converted
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> -1,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > which
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    break the comparison.
> Since
> > > we
> > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > >> > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> types
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > now,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > I
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > doubt
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    works.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - There is an obvious
> > > > > > cross-platform
> > > > > > > > data
> > > > > > > > >> > loss
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > when
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > "intuitive"
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > type
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    mapping is used by a user
> > (u8
> > > > > > > > >> corresponds to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > byte
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> type in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > .NET,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > but
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user
> > > will
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> use
> > > > > > > > >> > > short
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Java,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    will also need to take
> care
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > range
> > > > > > > > >> > check
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > serialization).
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    think we can even allow
> to
> > > try
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > deserialize
> > > > > > > > >> > > a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> into
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > arbitrary
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > type,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    but throw an exception if
> > the
> > > > > range
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> out
> > > > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > bounds.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Overall, I agree with
> Andrey's
> > > > > > comments.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating
> > the
> > > > IEP
> > > > > > > once
> > > > > > > > >> all
> > > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > details
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> are
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > settled
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > here?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в
> 18:19,
> > > > Andrey
> > > > > > > > >> Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > >> > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I believe uLong values
> > beyond
> > > > 2^63
> > > > > > > can't
> > > > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > treated
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> correctly
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > now
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return
> > wrong
> > > > > > results)
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I think we could make
> "true"
> > > > > support
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> types,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> but
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > they
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > limitations on the Java
> > side.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be
> > able
> > > > to
> > > > > > map
> > > > > > > > >> uint64
> > > > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> long
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > primitive,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > BigInteger only.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > As for indices, we could
> > read
> > > > > uint64
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> Java
> > > > > > > > >> > > > long,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> treat
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > negative
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > values in a different way
> to
> > > > > > preserve
> > > > > > > > >> correct
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > ordering.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > These limitations will
> > affect
> > > > only
> > > > > > > mixed
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > environments
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> when
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > .Net
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > used to access the data.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Will this solution address
> > > your
> > > > > > > issues?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
> 5:45
> > > PM
> > > > > > Pavel
> > > > > > > > >> > Tupitsyn
> > > > > > > > >> > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is
> impossible.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is how it works in
> > > Ignite
> > > > > > since
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > beginning
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > .NET
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > C++
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > :)
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > You can use unsigned
> > > > primitives
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > > cache
> > > > > > > > >> > keys
> > > > > > > > >> > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> values,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > as
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > properties,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even
> > in
> > > > > WHERE
> > > > > > > x=y
> > > > > > > > >> > > clauses)
> > > > > > > > >> > > > -
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> works
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > transparently
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the users.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing
> > and
> > > > > treats
> > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > >> > > values
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > as
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > corresponding
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > signed
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > However, this
> abstraction
> > > > leaks
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > >> > cases
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > only
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> because
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > there
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is why I'm
> proposing
> > a
> > > > very
> > > > > > > > simple
> > > > > > > > >> > > change
> > > > > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > protocol
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > -
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the
> > > same
> > > > > way
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > >> signed
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> counterparts.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
> > 5:00
> > > > PM
> > > > > > > Andrey
> > > > > > > > >> > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long
> in
> > > > Java
> > > > > > > > (bitwise
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> representation
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > same)
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is
> impossible.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a
> .NET
> > > > class
> > > > > > > with a
> > > > > > > > >> > uByte
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > field
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> map
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > 'uint8'
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > column.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Then you set the field
> > > value
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > "250"
> > > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > >> > > put
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> object
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > into a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > table,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > field value perfectly
> > fits
> > > > to
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > single
> > > > > > > > >> > byte
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 'int8'
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > column.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't
> > > > > > deserialize
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > directly
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Java
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > object
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > field
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we
> > should
> > > > map
> > > > > > > uint8
> > > > > > > > >> type
> > > > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 'short'
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > type
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > because the one
> expected
> > > to
> > > > > see
> > > > > > > > "250"
> > > > > > > > >> as
> > > > > > > > >> > a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > value
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> which
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > fit
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > signed type.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will
> > > need
> > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> BigInteger
> > > > > > > > >> > > > field
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Java.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't
> > > treat
> > > > > > > column
> > > > > > > > >> value
> > > > > > > > >> > > as
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 'byte'
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > as
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > is,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > after reading you will
> > > get a
> > > > > > > > negative
> > > > > > > > >> > > value,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > so
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> should
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > cast
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > short
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > at first. (converted
> to
> > > > > > BigInteger
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > uint64)
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > So, index on signed
> type
> > > > will
> > > > > > > > require
> > > > > > > > >> a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > different
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > comparator.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look
> > > > simpler.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020
> at
> > > 4:23
> > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > Pavel
> > > > > > > > >> > > > Tupitsyn
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think range
> > > > > narrowing
> > > > > > > is a
> > > > > > > > >> good
> > > > > > > > >> > > > idea.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any
> > problems
> > > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> simple
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > described?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020
> > at
> > > > 4:01
> > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > >> Andrey
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with
> > > > > narrowing
> > > > > > > > range
> > > > > > > > >> > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> types
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > then
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > add a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > constraint for
> > > unsigned
> > > > > > types
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > >> > schema
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > level
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> (like
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > nullability
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > flag)
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as
> > > signed
> > > > > > types
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > storage.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We are going with
> a
> > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > >> storage
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> type-system
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > binary
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type-system,
> however
> > > > most
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > >> > will
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > match
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 1
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 1
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > with
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > storage
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (native)
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you
> > will
> > > > > either
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > >> a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> type
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> id
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > or
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > treat
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > serialized
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a
> > > schema
> > > > > > > (signed
> > > > > > > > >> or
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> flag).
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users
> > can
> > > > > ever
> > > > > > > > >> foresee
> > > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> consequences
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > using
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user
> used
> > to
> > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > >> types
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > perfectly
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> works
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > with
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > database,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into
> > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > >> successor
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > confession
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> with
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > our
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > "native"
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types
> > > support.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > But later, he
> finds
> > > that
> > > > > he
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > >> use
> > > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > power
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Compute
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a
> new
> > > app.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user
> > will
> > > > > > either
> > > > > > > > >> fail to
> > > > > > > > >> > > use
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > his
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > unsigned
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > data
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > due
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > face performance
> > > issues
> > > > > due
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > natural
> > > > > > > > >> > > > Java
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> type
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > system
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > limitations
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong
> to
> > > > > > > BigInteger.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that
> > > natively
> > > > > > > > supported
> > > > > > > > >> > types
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> possible
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > value
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > ranges
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > limitations should
> > be
> > > > > known.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, the only
> > question
> > > is
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > >> > trade-off
> > > > > > > > >> > > > we
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> found
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > acceptable:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > narrowing
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> range
> > or
> > > > use
> > > > > > > types
> > > > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > > > >> > > wider
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> range on
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > systems
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Java.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24,
> 2020
> > > at
> > > > > 3:25
> > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > >> Igor
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Sapego <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I
> think
> > it
> > > > is
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > >> hard
> > > > > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> implement
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > comparison
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in
> Java,
> > so
> > > > it
> > > > > > does
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > >> > seem
> > > > > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > be a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> big
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > issue
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage
> > of
> > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > >> types
> > > > > > > > >> > > from
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> - I
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > think,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > if
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and
> is
> > > > going
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > interact
> > > > > > > > >> > > > with
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> from
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > he
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > knows
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are
> > for
> > > > use
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > >> > > platforms
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> they
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > have
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > native
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > widely
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in
> C++
> > or
> > > > > .NET,
> > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > >> > > users
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> currently
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > have
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > make a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > manual
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > casting
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or even just
> stop
> > > > using
> > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > >> > > types
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > when
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> they
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > use
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Ignite.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24,
> > 2020
> > > > at
> > > > > > 3:06
> > > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > >> > Pavel
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is
> > much
> > > > > > > simpler:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol
> > > > support
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> those
> > > > > > > > >> > > > types
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > (basically,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > just
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong
> as
> > > > long
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > >> > > > (bitwise
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > representation
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > same)
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does
> > not
> > > > have
> > > > > > > > >> unsigned
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > integers,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> so
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> we
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > can
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > simply
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > say
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value
> > > > > relative
> > > > > > > > >> > comparison
> > > > > > > > >> > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > supported
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (equality
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov
> 24,
> > > 2020
> > > > > at
> > > > > > > 2:40
> > > > > > > > >> PM
> > > > > > > > >> > > > Andrey
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> Pavel
> > > and
> > > > > > Igor.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your
> > > ideas
> > > > to
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > >> i8 or
> > > > > > > > >> > > > int8
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> instead of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Integer.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the
> naming
> > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > >> address
> > > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > issue.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree
> > internal
> > > > > types
> > > > > > > > >> should
> > > > > > > > >> > be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > portable
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > across
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > systems
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > unsigned
> > > > > type
> > > > > > > > >> support.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only
> issue
> > > > here
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> types
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > cover
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > ranges.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume
> > we
> > > > want
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > introduce a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> uLong.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't
> > look
> > > > > like a
> > > > > > > big
> > > > > > > > >> deal
> > > > > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > add
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> uLong
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > type
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > storage
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it
> to
> > a
> > > 8
> > > > > > bytes
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > then
> > > > > > > > >> > > > use
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> e.g.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > .Net
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > only.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we
> > could
> > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > > > >> > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Java?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep
> in
> > > mind
> > > > > > Long
> > > > > > > > >> range
> > > > > > > > >> > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > about
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> (2^-63
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > ..
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 2^63)
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > range
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first
> > > > option
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > restrict
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > range
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> (0
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > ..
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > 2^63).
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in
> e.g.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no
> > > > > > conversion,
> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > >> > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > look
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> like
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 'real'
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support.
> > Things
> > > go
> > > > > > worse
> > > > > > > > >> when
> > > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > user
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> use
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > uByte,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > limitation
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte
> > > totally
> > > > > > > > unusable.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The
> second
> > > one
> > > > is
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > map
> > > > > > > > >> > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> types
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > type
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > wider
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint
> > for
> > > > > > > negative
> > > > > > > > >> > values.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > E.g.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> uLong to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > BigInteger.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't
> > use
> > > > > > > primitive
> > > > > > > > >> Java
> > > > > > > > >> > > > type
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Long
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > here.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > However,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to
> > > store
> > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > > in 8
> > > > > > > > >> > > bytes,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > but
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> have a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > special
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > comparator
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> types
> > > to
> > > > > > avoid
> > > > > > > > >> > unwanted
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > deserialization.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov
> > 24,
> > > > 2020
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > >> 2:04 PM
> > > > > > > > >> > > > Pavel
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Tupitsyn
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree,
> let's
> > > get
> > > > > rid
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> > "long,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > short,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> byte"
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use
> > > Rust
> > > > > > style,
> > > > > > > > >> which
> > > > > > > > >> > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > concise
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > unambiguous:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8,
> i16,
> > > > u16,
> > > > > > etc
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue,
> Nov
> > > 24,
> > > > > 2020
> > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > >> 1:58
> > > > > > > > >> > PM
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Sapego <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> totally
> > > > > support
> > > > > > > > that.
> > > > > > > > >> > Also,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > if
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> are
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > aiming
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger
> > > > > > > > >> > > platform-independance,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our
> > > schemas
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > >> want
> > > > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > bit-notation
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (int32,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long"
> can
> > > > mean
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> different
> > > > > > > > >> > > > type
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > on
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > different
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > platforms
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > (happens
> > > > > > often
> > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > >> > > using
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > ODBC
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > example).
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best
> > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue,
> > Nov
> > > > 24,
> > > > > > 2020
> > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > >> > 1:34
> > > > > > > > >> > > PM
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Pavel
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Tupitsyn
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> think
> > we
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> data
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > types:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte,
> > > > uShort,
> > > > > > > uInt,
> > > > > > > > >> > uLong
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java
> > does
> > > > not
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > >> them,
> > > > > > > > >> > > but
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > many
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> other
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > languages
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > do,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> with
> > > the
> > > > > > > growing
> > > > > > > > >> > number
> > > > > > > > >> > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > thin
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > clients
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> > > example,
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> current
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Ignite.NET
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > implementation
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > signed
> > > > > > > > internally,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> this
> > > is
> > > > a
> > > > > > huge
> > > > > > > > >> pain
> > > > > > > > >> > > when
> > > > > > > > >> > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> comes
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > metadata,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > binary
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is
> > > easy
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > deserialize
> > > > > > > > >> > > > int
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > as
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> uint
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > when
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > you
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > class,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > objections?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On
> Tue,
> > > Nov
> > > > > 24,
> > > > > > > 2020
> > > > > > > > >> at
> > > > > > > > >> > > 12:28
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Andrey
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Denis,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good
> > > > point.
> > > > > > Both
> > > > > > > > >> > > > serializers
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > reflection
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > However,
> > > > we
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > >> allow
> > > > > > > > >> > > > users
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > configure
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > static
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > along
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> 'strict'
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> schema
> > > > mode,
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > >> still
> > > > > > > > >> > > need
> > > > > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> validate
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > user
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > classes
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > client
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> against
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > latest
> > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > grid
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > reflection
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One
> > can
> > > > > find a
> > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > >> > > articles
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > on
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > internet
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > on
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > GraalVM.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll
> > > > create
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > task
> > > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > supporting
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > GraalVM,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > maybe
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > familiar
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > >> GraalVM
> > > > > > > > >> > > will
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> suggest a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > solution
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll
> > do
> > > > it a
> > > > > > bit
> > > > > > > > >> later.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If
> no
> > > > > > workaround
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > found,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > we
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> could
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > allow
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > users
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > serializer,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > >> don't
> > > > > > > > >> > > > think
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > good
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > expose
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > classes
> > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> public.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On
> > Tue,
> > > > Nov
> > > > > > 24,
> > > > > > > > >> 2020 at
> > > > > > > > >> > > > 2:55
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > AM
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Denis
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > Andrey,
> > > > > > thanks
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > update,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Does
> > > any
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > serializers
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> take
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> into
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > consideration
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > native-image-generation
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> feature of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > GraalVM?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> With
> > > the
> > > > > > > current
> > > > > > > > >> > binary
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> marshaller,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > we
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > can't
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > even
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > generate
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> for
> > > the
> > > > > code
> > > > > > > > using
> > > > > > > > >> > our
> > > > > > > > >> > > > thin
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> client
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > APIs.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > Denis
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On
> > > Mon,
> > > > > Nov
> > > > > > > 23,
> > > > > > > > >> 2020
> > > > > > > > >> > at
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > 4:39
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > AM
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Andrey
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Hi
> > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > I'd
> > > > like
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > continue
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> discussion
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > IEP-54
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > Hope
> > > > > > > everyone
> > > > > > > > >> who
> > > > > > > > >> > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> interested
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > had a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > chance
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > proposal
> > > > > > > [1].
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > Please,
> > > > > do
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > >> > > hesitate
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> ask
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > questions
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > share
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > I've
> > > > > > > prepared
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > prototype
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > serializer
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > data
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > described
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > > > proposal.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> In
> > > > > > prototy,
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > >> > > compared
> > > > > > > > >> > > > 2
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> approaches
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > (de)serialize
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> one
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > uses
> > > > > java
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > reflection/unsafe
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> API
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > and
> > > > the
> > > > > > > second
> > > > > > > > >> one
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > generates
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > serializer
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> uses
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > Janino
> > > > > > > library
> > > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> compilation.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > Second
> > > > > one
> > > > > > > > shows
> > > > > > > > >> > > better
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> results
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > benchmarks.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> I
> > > > think
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > >> go
> > > > > > > > >> > > with
> > > > > > > > >> > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > default
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > serializer
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > reflection-based
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > implementation
> > > > > > > > >> as a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > fallback
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> if
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > someone
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > one.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > There
> > > > > are
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> number
> > > > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > tasks
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> under
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > umbrella
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ticket
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > assignee.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > BTW,
> > > > I'm
> > > > > > > going
> > > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > create
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > tickets
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > manager
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > implementation,
> > > > > > > > >> but
> > > > > > > > >> > > > would
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> like
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > clarify
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > details.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> I
> > > > > thought
> > > > > > > > >> > > schemaManager
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > on
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> each
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > node
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > should
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > held:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >  1.
> > > > > Local
> > > > > > > > >> mapping
> > > > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > "schema
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > version"
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > <-->
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > validated
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> key/value
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > classes
> > > > > > > pair.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >  2.
> > > > > > > > >> Cluster-wide
> > > > > > > > >> > > > schema
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> changes
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > history.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> On
> > > the
> > > > > > > client
> > > > > > > > >> side.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Before
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> any
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > operation
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > validate a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > schema
> > > > > > for a
> > > > > > > > >> given
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> pair.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> If
> > > > there
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > local-mapping
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> exists
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > given
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > cluster
> > > > > > wide
> > > > > > > > >> schema
> > > > > > > > >> > > > has a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> more
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > recent
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > should
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> validated
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > against
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > latest
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> updated/actualized.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> If
> > > an
> > > > > > object
> > > > > > > > >> > doesn't
> > > > > > > > >> > > > fit
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > latest
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > depends
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > mode:
> > > > > > either
> > > > > > > > >> fail
> > > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> operation
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > ('strict'
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > mode)
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > created
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> new
> > > > > > > > >> > > > schema
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> version
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > should
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > propagated
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> On
> > > the
> > > > > > > server
> > > > > > > > >> side
> > > > > > > > >> > we
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > usually
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> have
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > no
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > classes
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> operate
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> with
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > tuples.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> As
> > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > >> > > > history
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > available
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > tuple
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> then
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> it
> > > is
> > > > > > > possible
> > > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > upgrade
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > received
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > tuple
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > last
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > without
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > desialization.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > Thus
> > > > we
> > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > >> allow
> > > > > > > > >> > > > nodes
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> send
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > pairs
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> versions
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> (if
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > they
> > > > > > didn't
> > > > > > > > >> > receive a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> update
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > yet)
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > reverting
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > changes
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > made
> > > > by
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > node
> > > > > > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > >> > > > newer
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> classes.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > Alex,
> > > > > Val,
> > > > > > > > Ivan
> > > > > > > > >> did
> > > > > > > > >> > > you
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > mean
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > same?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > [1]
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > [2]
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > [3]
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> On
> > > > Thu,
> > > > > > Sep
> > > > > > > > 17,
> > > > > > > > >> > 2020
> > > > > > > > >> > > at
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 9:21
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> AM
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Ivan
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > Folks,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > Please
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > >> > > ignore
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> history.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> We
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > had
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > ideas.
> > > > > > We
> > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > >> > > resume
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > [1]
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > 2020-09-10
> > > > > > > > >> 0:08
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Denis
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Magda
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > >
> > > > Val,
> > > > > > > makes
> > > > > > > > >> > sense,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > thanks
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > explaining.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > >
> > > > > Agree
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> we
> > > > > > > > >> > > need
> > > > > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> have a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > separate
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > "table"
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > >
> > > > > > "cache"
> > > > > > > > >> terms
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> substitution.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > I'll
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > appreciate
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > thread
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > >
> > > > > > sharing
> > > > > > > > >> > pointers
> > > > > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > any
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > relevant
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > IEPs
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > reasoning
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > suggested
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > >
> > > > > > change.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > >
> > > -
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > >
> > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > >
> > > On
> > > > > > Tue,
> > > > > > > > Sep
> > > > > > > > >> 8,
> > > > > > > > >> > > 2020
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > at
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 6:01
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> PM
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > >>
> > > > Hi
> > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >> I
> > > > > > guess
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > wording
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> IEP
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > little
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > bit
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > means
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > >>
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > >> > should
> > > > > > > > >> > > > not
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> create
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > nested
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > POJOs,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > into a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > >>
> > > > > > single
> > > > > > > > POJO
> > > > > > > > >> > that
> > > > > > > > >> > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> mapped
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > nested
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > >>
> > > > > POJOs
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > >> not
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > supported.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > >>
> > > > > Alex,
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> this
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > correct?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Please
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > let
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > me
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > something.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > >>
> > > > As
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > "cache"
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> term, I
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > agree
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> sure
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > >>
> > > > > what
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > >> > > > replace
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> with.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > "Table"
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > tightly
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > but
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > >>
> > > > SQL
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > optional
> > > > > > > > >> > > in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > our
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> case.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Do
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > you
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > create a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > >>
> > > > > about
> > > > > > > > this?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > >>
> > > > > -Val
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > >>
> > > > On
> > > > > > Tue,
> > > > > > > > >> Sep 8,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > 2020
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > at
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 4:37 PM
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > Val,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > >> checked
> > > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > IEP
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> again
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > have a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > questions.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > > > > Arbitrary
> > > > > > > > >> > > nested
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> objects
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > collections
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> column
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > > > values.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Nested
> > > > > > > > >> > POJOs
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > should
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> either
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > inlined
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > BLOBs
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > > Could
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > >> > > > provide a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > DDL
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> code
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > snippet
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > showing
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > POJOs
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > > > supposed
> > > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > >> > > work?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > > Also,
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > >> keep
> > > > > > > > >> > > > using
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> terms
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > "cache"
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> IEP.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > Is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > right
> > > > > > > > >> > time
> > > > > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> discuss
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> an
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > alternate
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > those
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > too?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >> Personally,
> > > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > should
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > stay
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >> considering
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > > >> > one
> > > > > > > > >> > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > primary
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > APIs
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > supported
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >> > out-of-the-box.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > -
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > On
> > > > > > > Mon,
> > > > > > > > >> Sep
> > > > > > > > >> > 7,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > 2020
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 12:26
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > PM
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > >> your
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > point. I
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> agree
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > that
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > automatic
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > into
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> schema-last
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> territory.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> Actually,
> > > > > > > > >> > if
> > > > > > > > >> > > we
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > automatic
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > evolution,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > support
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> creating a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > cache
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> without
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > schema
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > inferring
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > insert.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > In
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > >> > words,
> > > > > > > > >> > > we
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > can
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> have
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > both
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > "schema-last"
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > modes.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alexey,
> > > > > > > > >> > what
> > > > > > > > >> > > do
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > you
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> think?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > > -Val
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > On
> > > > > > > > Mon,
> > > > > > > > >> Sep
> > > > > > > > >> > > 7,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > 2020
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> at
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 5:59
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > AM
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Alexey
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thank
> > > > > > > > >> > you,
> > > > > > > > >> > > I
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > got
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> your
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > concern
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > now.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > As
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > regarding
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > terminology,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > I
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > am
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > absolutely
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > fine
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > whatever
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > fits
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > approach
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > best.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Dynamic
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > or
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > evolving
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> great. I
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > will
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > make
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > corresponding
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> changes
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > IEP
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > once
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > settle
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > пн,
> > > > > > > > 7
> > > > > > > > >> > сент.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > 2020
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> г. в
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 11:33,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Ivan
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > > > >> Val,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> Thank
> > > > > > > > >> > you
> > > > > > > > >> > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> your
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > answer!
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > little
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > bit
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > different.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > evolution
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > definitely
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> should be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > difference
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > "how
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> schema
> > > > > > > > >> > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> updated".
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> I
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > treat a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > common
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > schema-first.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > > Schema
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > data
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> manipulation
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > operations
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > clearly
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > > > enables
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > interesting
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > capabilities,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > preventing
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > changes
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > mistaken
> > > > > > > > >> > > > data
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > operations,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > restricting
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> permissions
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > change
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> schema.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Schema-first
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> means
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > that
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > exists
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > > stored
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > data
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > compliant
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> it -
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > that's
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A
> > > > > > > > >> > > > schema-last
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> approach
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > mentioned
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > schema
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> exists,
> > > > > > > > >> > > but
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > inferred
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > from
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > data.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > similar
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > proposing
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> approach?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > >> I
> > > > > > > > >> > > would
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > say,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > mostly
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> about
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > terminology.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > suppose
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > if
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > confuses
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > might
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > confused
> > > > > > > > >> > > as
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> well. My
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > feeling
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > closer
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> liquid
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > evolving
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > schema".
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > 2020-09-07
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > 0:47
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > > > >> > > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > >> > don't
> > > > > > > > >> > > > see
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> issue
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > with
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > that.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > schema
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > > exists
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > advance
> > > > > > > > >> > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > stored
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > data
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > compliant
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > that's
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > proposed.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> There
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > are
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > no
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > restrictions
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > changes
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> schema.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On
> > > > > > > > >> > Sat,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > Sep
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 5,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 2020
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > at
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > 9:52
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ivan
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > Alexey,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> I
> > > > > > > > >> > am a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > little
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> bit
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > confused
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > conforms
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> to a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > survey
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> (see
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > part
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > X
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Semi
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Structured
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > really
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > treat
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > "dynamic
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> schema"
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > as a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > kind
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > "schema-first"?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > 2020-09-02
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 1:53
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > However,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> could
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > please
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > between
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > ORM?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > Is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > there
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> use
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > case
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > (I
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> haven't
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > seen
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > one
> > > > > > > > >> > > > so
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> far)?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> If
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > so,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > what
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > side
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > support
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > this?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > In
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > which
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> we
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > have.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > Am
> > > > > > > > >> > > I
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> missing
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > something?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > Good
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > point,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> yes,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > if
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > all
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > ORM
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Ignite
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > SQL
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > APIs
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > internally,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> then
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > they
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > can
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > easily
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > translate
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > object
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > into
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > an
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> INSERT/UPDATE
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > statement
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > lists
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > fields.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > Luckily,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > our
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > Spring
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > integration
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > based
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> SQL
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > APIs
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > needs
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> improved
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > once
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > supported.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > That
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > solve
> > > > > > > > >> > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > ton
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > usability
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > I
> > > > > > > > >> > > > would
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> revise
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> during
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> dev
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > phase.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Can't
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> say
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > if
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > it's
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > used
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > getting
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > traction
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > sure.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > @Michael
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Pollind,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > I'll
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > loop
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > long
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > started
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > working
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Micornaut
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >
> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > came
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > across
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> some
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > challenges.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > watch
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > That's
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > coming
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Ignite
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 3.0.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > -
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > Denis
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > On
> > > > > > > > >> > > > Mon,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Aug
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 31,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > 2020
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > at
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > 5:11
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > Hi
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Generally
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > speaking, I
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > schema-first
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> natively
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > addresses
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > issue
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > if
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > duplicate
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > value
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > because
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > schema
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> will be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > created
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > cache,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > object,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> happens
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> now.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Basically,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > schema
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > define
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > primary
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > key
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > not,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > which
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> fields
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > are
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > included
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > API
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > would
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > have
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > must
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > compliant
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > this,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> fairly
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > easy
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > with
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > data
> > > > > > > > >> > > > as
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> with a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > set
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > records,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > key-value
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > pairs.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > However,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> could
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > please
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > between
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > ORM?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > Is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > there
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> use
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > case
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > (I
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> haven't
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > seen
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > one
> > > > > > > > >> > > > so
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> far)?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> If
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > so,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > what
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > side
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > support
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > this?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > In
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > which
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> we
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > have.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > Am
> > > > > > > > >> > > I
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> missing
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > something?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > -Val
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > On
> > > > > > > > >> > > > Mon,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Aug
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 31,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 2020
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > at
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > 2:08
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > Val,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > I
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > would
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> propose
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > adding
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > point
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > motivations
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > list
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > related
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > ORM
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > frameworks
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > > > > Hibernate,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > Micronaut
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > many
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> others.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Presently,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > storage
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > engine
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requires
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > distinguish
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > key
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > objects
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > from
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > value
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> ones
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> that
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > complicate
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > those
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > ORM
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> frameworks
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> (especially
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> if
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > key
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > object
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > comprises
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > fields).
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > More
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > on
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> can
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > found
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> here:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > It
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > will
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> nice
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > if
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > allows
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > us
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > single
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> entity
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > object
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > comes
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > need
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > split
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > entity
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> into
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > key
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > value.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> that
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > has
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > all
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > essential
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > public
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > APIs
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > single-entity
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > based
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > approach.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > What
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > do
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> you
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > think?
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > -
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > On
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Fri,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Aug
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 28,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > 2020
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > at
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > 3:50
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Igniters,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > One
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > big
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proposed
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> so-called
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> "schema-first
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > approach".
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > To
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > started
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> writing
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > IEP
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> this
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > change:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> take a
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > look
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > let
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > > > > immediate
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> thoughts,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> suggestions,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > or
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > objections.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > -Val
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Best
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > regards,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Ivan
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best
> > > > > > > > >> > > > regards,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ivan
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > --
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > Best
> > > > > > > > regards,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > Ivan
> > > > > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> --
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > Best
> > > > > > > regards,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > Andrey
> > > > > V.
> > > > > > > > >> Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best
> > > > > regards,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Andrey
> > > V.
> > > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best
> regards,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V.
> > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V.
> Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > --
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > --
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > --
> > > > > > > > >> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > --
> > > > > > > > >> > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >
>


-- 
Best regards,
Andrey V. Mashenkov

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Ilya Kasnacheev <il...@gmail.com>]

Hello!

This makes sense, Andrey.

I also think that we may skip 2-byte lengths.
If the variable length fields section is larger than 255 bytes then we may
just always use 4 byte lengths, because their length becomes irrelevant
after a few kb of data stored.

So we may just have 1-byte addressing for small objects and 4-byte
addressing for larger ones.

WDYT?

Regards,
-- 
Ilya Kasnacheev


чт, 10 июн. 2021 г. в 15:36, Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>:

> Hi Ilya,
>
> Thanks for the answer. I like the idea with "re-packing".
> You suggest re-pack to larger sizes, that can cause up to 4 array copying,
> however, this could be improved.
>
> We can start with 4-bytes offset.
> Then once we have finish writing a chunk (key or value), we check if
> offsets fits into smaller type,
> then compact vartable and shift chunk data.
>
> If we will write 'sizes' instead 'offsets' or write relative offsets (e.g.
> from data block begin), then we'll not need to recalculate them. but just
> convert the types.
> We'll not need to create a new array for shifting the data.
>
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 12:40 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello!
> >
> > If we have determined that next varstring is too long to fit in 1-2 bytes
> > index, we can re-pack the whole object from scratch with 2-4 bytes index.
> >
> > Such as:
> >
> > We write all fixlen fields in the beginning.
> > We start to write first varlen string. Accumulated len is <255 so we use
> > single byte length
> > We start to write second varlen string. Accumulated len is now >255 but
> > <64k so we re-pack the first varlen string with 2 byte length also.
> > We start to write third varlen (let's say it's byte[] blob). Accumulated
> > len is suddenly >64k so we re-pack already written varlen fields to use 4
> > byte lengths/offsets.
> >
> > The overhead here is not as great as you could expect. When reading, we
> > already know total varlen fields section length so we also know how many
> > bytes size offsets take.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --
> > Ilya Kasnacheev
> >
> >
> > вт, 25 мая 2021 г. в 16:40, Andrey Mashenkov <andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> >:
> >
> > > >
> > > > I never said that you can predict string size.
> > >
> > > You suggest to use offsets use 1-2-4 bytes based on overall varlen
> > section
> > > size.
> > > Actually, we can't predict varlen section size if a string column
> defined
> > > before serializing strings.
> > >
> > > Do you suggest use the smallest possible offset size if no columns of
> > > string type are defined,
> > > but fallback to 4-byte if a string column goes into play?
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 6:59 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello!
> > > >
> > > > I never said that you can predict string size. Strings are definitely
> > > > varlen. You don't know string length when looking at object schema, I
> > > don't
> > > > even see why char-to-byte mapping is relevant here.
> > > >
> > > > What do you think about the approach where offsets use 1-2-4 bytes
> > based
> > > on
> > > > overall varlen section size, which is known in advance as I assume?
> > > >
> > > > With compression, some optimizations may be possible since you can
> > > compress
> > > > blocks of data and then concatenate these compressed fragments. So
> you
> > > can
> > > > say that "I want 40-th byte of 3rd fragment" but it sounds like an
> > > overkill
> > > > mostly.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > --
> > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > чт, 20 мая 2021 г. в 18:23, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Ilya,
> > > > >
> > > > > Not yet, we can't predict string size [1] as a character may be
> > encoded
> > > > in
> > > > > 1-4 bytes.
> > > > > So, we could either use a heuristic or serialize every string into
> an
> > > > array
> > > > > at first then assemble a row and copy the array into the row
> buffer.
> > > > >
> > > > > Good point, we can skip vartable for the first varlen field.
> > > > > We have a similar ticket [2] for the case with a single varlen.
> I'll
> > > fix
> > > > > the description to omit a first varlen offset.
> > > > >
> > > > > Agree, compression looks tricky and ineffective in this case.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4385623/bytes-of-a-string-in-java/4385653
> > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14746
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 5:58 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > > ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How about:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > First, all fields for which we know their specific order and size
> > go,
> > > > > such
> > > > > > as byte, short, int, long, boolean. This means that any short
> field
> > > > will
> > > > > > take just 2 bytes with no padding.
> > > > > > Then, all var-len fields go, such as nested object, strings, etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > After that, we know total object size already, right?
> > > > > > If size <= 256, then all offsets are 1 byte unsigned.
> > > > > > If size < 65k, then all offsets are 2 byte.
> > > > > > Else, all offsets are 4 byte.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We can count offsets starting from the first byle after constant
> > > fields
> > > > > > section and offsets section.
> > > > > > For the first varlen field, the offset is always 0, so we may
> skip
> > > this
> > > > > one
> > > > > > and start with offset of the second var field.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For compression it is trickier. I suggest not having any explicit
> > > > support
> > > > > > for compression right here, so that later on compression may use
> a
> > > > > > different object layout to be more efficient.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ср, 19 мая 2021 г. в 16:43, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've create a ticket [1] for large row support.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We use 2-bytes offsets for varlen fields that are supposed to
> be
> > > > large
> > > > > > > enough.
> > > > > > > AFAIK, some users use multi-MB values and 64k per Row looks
> like
> > a
> > > > > strong
> > > > > > > limitation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, we have either to increase offset_size up to 4-bytes or use
> > > some
> > > > > > > advanced mechanics for compression or adaptive offset_size.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. Increasing offset size may add overhead for keys like next:
> > > > > > > class Key {
> > > > > > >    int id;
> > > > > > >    String str; // Some short string code.
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2. Compression will require table to be decompressed on every
> > > varlen
> > > > > > column
> > > > > > > access, e.g. for comparison purposes while index scan.
> > > > > > > Also, we may need to pre-calculate compressed table size to
> avoid
> > > > > buffer
> > > > > > > copying (shrinking or extending) during row assembling.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3. Adaptive offset_size implies row size estimation.
> > > > > > > We already do to reduce the probability of buffer expanding,
> but
> > we
> > > > > need
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > high margin for this purpose.
> > > > > > > 'String' values size is a hard part as String character may be
> > > > encoded
> > > > > > into
> > > > > > > 1-4 bytes depending on Charset.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Usually, a user don't want to care about Column length
> limitation
> > > and
> > > > > > chars
> > > > > > > collation.
> > > > > > > So, we can expect a Java default behavior will be used in most
> > > cases:
> > > > > > > 'unlimited' string size with up to 4-bytes characters support.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Possible strategies
> > > > > > > 3.1 Introduce 'Collation' for string and validate all the chars
> > on
> > > > row
> > > > > > > assembling and rely on the user limited column length.
> > > > > > > Thus, we can use varlen limits (+ collation for strings) to
> > > estimate
> > > > > row
> > > > > > > size and pre-calculate offset_size to keep it within the
> schema.
> > > > > > > 3.2 Introduce more row flags for different offset sizes (byte,
> > > short,
> > > > > > int)
> > > > > > > and calculate row size right before assembling for choosing
> > > > appropriate
> > > > > > > offset_size.
> > > > > > > Heuristics for strings using collation is also applicable here
> > and
> > > > keep
> > > > > > > algorithm complexity independent from the data length, but the
> > > schema
> > > > > > only.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I like an approach '3.2' because we already estimate row size.
> > > > > > > Any thoughts?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14743
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 7:25 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > I've prepared PR [1] with Public Table API for final review.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Main points
> > > > > > > > There are 4 projection interfaces over Table for different
> > > > use-cases
> > > > > > > > (Plain record vs Key-Value and POJO vs Binary object)
> declaring
> > > > > > > synchronous
> > > > > > > > and asynchronous methods.
> > > > > > > > Async method returns IgniteFuture as there is no consensus on
> > > > > > > IgniteFuture
> > > > > > > > vs JDK CompletableFuture yet.
> > > > > > > > API implementation is incomplete, it just an example of how
> it
> > > > could
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > done and will be implemented in future tasks.
> > > > > > > > Tuple/TupleAssembler renamed to Row/RowAssembler. Now Tuple
> is
> > > > just a
> > > > > > > > dictionary representing a subset of columns, while Row is a
> > > > > > schema-aware
> > > > > > > > object containing key and value columns respectively to the
> > data
> > > > > > layout.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:26 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> I see, thanks.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Let's discuss the return type - Future is not the one to
> use.
> > > > > > > >> We should return CompletionStage, CompletableFuture, or
> > > introduce
> > > > > our
> > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > >> interface.
> > > > > > > >> We agreed on the last one (custom interface) for thin
> clients:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/IEP-51-Java-Thin-Client-Async-API-td48900.html
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> I believe that for Ignite 3.0 we should have the following:
> > > > > > > >> public interface IgniteFuture<T> extends Future<T>,
> > > > > > CompletionStage<T> {
> > > > > > > >>     // No-op.
> > > > > > > >> }
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Thoughts?
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:16 AM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > >> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > Pavel,
> > > > > > > >> > There are 2 PR's for the ticket[1] with two different APIs
> > > > > > suggested.
> > > > > > > >> > Please, take a look at PR [2].
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14035
> > > > > > > >> > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/69
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:11 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > Andrey, I can't find any async methods,
> > > > > > > >> > > can you please check if the changes are pushed?
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 10:06 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > >> > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > Pavel, good point.
> > > > > > > >> > > > Thanks. I've added async methods.
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 2:29 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > >> ptupitsyn@apache.org>
> > > > > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > What about corresponding async APIs, do we add them
> > now
> > > or
> > > > > > > later?
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 8:11 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi Igniters.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > I've created a PR for Table access API [1].
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > This is an initial version. So, any
> > > > suggestions\objections
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > >> > > > welcomed.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to write your comments
> > and\or
> > > > > > examples
> > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > PR.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Ignite-api module contains API classes, e.g.
> > TableView
> > > > > > classes
> > > > > > > >> as
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > projections for a table for different purposes.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Ignite-table contains dummy implementation and
> > Example
> > > > > class
> > > > > > > >> > > explained
> > > > > > > >> > > > > how
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > it is supposed to be used.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Also, I'm still waiting for any feedback for
> Schema
> > > > > > > >> configuration
> > > > > > > >> > > > public
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > API PR [2].
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/33
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:05 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I've updated a PR regarding your feedback [1].
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:58 AM Alexey
> Goncharuk
> > <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Folks,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I updated the IEP to contain the missing
> pieces;
> > > > > > actually,
> > > > > > > >> most
> > > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> questions here were covered by the text. Please
> > let
> > > > me
> > > > > > know
> > > > > > > >> if
> > > > > > > >> > > there
> > > > > > > >> > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> something still missing or unclear.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> чт, 31 дек. 2020 г. в 12:48, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Mikhail and Igniters,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Thanks for your comments. The questions are
> > > > > reasonable,
> > > > > > > >> > though I
> > > > > > > >> > > > > think
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> all
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > concerns are addressed by the IEP as Val
> > > > mentioned. I
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > >> > > update
> > > > > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > document according to your questions in the
> > > > following
> > > > > > > week
> > > > > > > >> or
> > > > > > > >> > > so,
> > > > > > > >> > > > so
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> can
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > have a constructive discussion further.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > ср, 30 дек. 2020 г. в 11:45, Michael
> Cherkasov
> > <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > michael.cherkasov@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Hi Val, Andrey,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> thank you for clarifying.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> I still have a few comments.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 1. one table == one schema. KV vs SQL:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Looks like all agreed that KV is just a
> > special
> > > > case
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > >> > > regular
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > table
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> with (blob,blob) schema.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> I worry about the case when the user starts
> > from
> > > > KV
> > > > > > case
> > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > >> > > > later
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> try
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to expand it and try to leverage SQL for the
> > > > > existing
> > > > > > KV
> > > > > > > >> > table
> > > > > > > >> > > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> won't be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> able to do so and will require to reload
> data.
> > > > which
> > > > > > > isn't
> > > > > > > >> > > > > convenient
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> sometimes not even possible. Is it possible
> to
> > > > > > extract a
> > > > > > > >> new
> > > > > > > >> > > > field
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> (blob, blob) schema and apply index on it?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 2. Could you please also list all ways of
> > schema
> > > > > > > >> definition
> > > > > > > >> > in
> > > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> IEP? It
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> significant change and I bet the main point
> of
> > > > this
> > > > > > IEP,
> > > > > > > >> > > everyone
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > hates
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> QueryEntities, they are difficult to manage
> > and
> > > in
> > > > > > > >> general,
> > > > > > > >> > > it's
> > > > > > > >> > > > > very
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> confusing to have a data model(schemas) and
> > > > > > node/cluster
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > configuration
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> one place.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> So there will be SchemaBuilder and SQL to
> > define
> > > > > > > schemas,
> > > > > > > >> but
> > > > > > > >> > > > > Andrey
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> also
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> mentioned annotations.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> I personally against configuration via
> > > > annotations,
> > > > > > > while
> > > > > > > >> > it's
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> convenient
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> for development, it difficult to manage
> > because
> > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > >> > > classes
> > > > > > > >> > > > > can
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> deployed on different clients/servers nodes
> > and
> > > it
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > >> lead
> > > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> unpredictable results.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 3. IEP doesn't mention field type changes,
> > only
> > > > > > drop/add
> > > > > > > >> > > fields.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Field
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> type
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> changes are extremely painful right now(if
> > even
> > > > > > > >> possible), so
> > > > > > > >> > > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> nice if some scenarios would be
> supported(like
> > > > > > > >> int8->int16,
> > > > > > > >> > or
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> int8->String).
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 4. got it, I thought IEP will have more
> > details
> > > > > about
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> implementation.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> I've seen Andrey even sent benchmark results
> > > for a
> > > > > new
> > > > > > > >> > > > > serialization,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> ping him about this.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 5. Thanks for the clarification. I had a
> wrong
> > > > > > > >> understanding
> > > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > strick
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> mode.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> вт, 29 дек. 2020 г. в 19:32, Valentin
> > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Hi Mike,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Thanks for providing your feedback. Please
> > see
> > > > my
> > > > > > > >> comments
> > > > > > > >> > > > below.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > I would also encourage you to go through
> the
> > > > > IEP-54
> > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > >> -
> > > > > > > >> > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > has
> > > > > > > >> > > > > a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> lot
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > detail on the topic.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > [1]
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > -Val
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:22 PM Michael
> > > > > Cherkasov <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > michael.cherkasov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > I reviewed the mail thread and proposal
> > page
> > > > > and I
> > > > > > > >> still
> > > > > > > >> > > > don't
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> fully
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > understand what is going to be changed,
> I
> > > > would
> > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > >> > > > > appreciate
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> if
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > will answer a few questions:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 1. Are you going to leave only one
> schema
> > > per
> > > > > > cache?
> > > > > > > >> if
> > > > > > > >> > so,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > will
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> there
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > an option to have a table with arbitrary
> > > > > > > objects(pure
> > > > > > > >> KV
> > > > > > > >> > > > case)?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > My opinion is that KV case should be
> > natively
> > > > > > > >> supported. I
> > > > > > > >> > > > think
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> still
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > needs to be thought over, my current view
> on
> > > > this
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> that
> > > > > > > >> > we
> > > > > > > >> > > > > should
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> have
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > separate APIs for KV and more generic
> > > storages.
> > > > KV
> > > > > > > >> storage
> > > > > > > >> > > can
> > > > > > > >> > > > be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > implemented as a "table" with two BLOB
> > fields
> > > > > where
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > > >> > > > store
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > serialized key-value pairs. That would
> imply
> > > > > > > >> > deserialization
> > > > > > > >> > > on
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > read,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> but I
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > believe this is OK for KV use cases. I'm
> > happy
> > > > to
> > > > > > hear
> > > > > > > >> > other
> > > > > > > >> > > > > ideas
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> though
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > :)
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0
> > have
> > > to
> > > > > > > define
> > > > > > > >> > > schema?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > SchemaBuilder
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > and SQL only? Is there an option to put
> > the
> > > > > schema
> > > > > > > >> > > definition
> > > > > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > configuration?(I really don't like
> this, I
> > > > would
> > > > > > > >> prefer
> > > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > have
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > separate scripts to create schemas)
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > There will be no such thing as a static
> > > > > > configuration
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > first
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> place.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Tables and schemas are created in runtime.
> > > Even
> > > > if
> > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > >> > is a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > file
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> provided
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > on node startup, this file is only applied
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > scope
> > > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 'start'
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > operation. All configurations will be
> stored
> > > in
> > > > a
> > > > > > meta
> > > > > > > >> > > storage
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> available to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > all nodes, as opposed to individual files.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 3. Is there a way to change field type?
> if
> > > > yes,
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > >> it be
> > > > > > > >> > > > done
> > > > > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > runtime?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Absolutely! IEP-54 has a whole section
> about
> > > > > schema
> > > > > > > >> > > evolution.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going
> to
> > > be
> > > > > > > >> re-worked
> > > > > > > >> > > too,
> > > > > > > >> > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> there
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> any
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > IEP for this?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > BinaryMarshaller as a tool for arbitrary
> > > object
> > > > > > > >> > serialization
> > > > > > > >> > > > > will
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> gone,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > but we will reuse a lot of its concept to
> > > > > implement
> > > > > > an
> > > > > > > >> > > internal
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > tuple
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > serialization mechanism. IEP-54 has the
> > > > > description
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > proposed
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> data
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > format.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 5. I don't like automatic schema
> > evaluation
> > > > > when a
> > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > >> > > field
> > > > > > > >> > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> added
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > automatically on record put, so is
> there a
> > > way
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > prohibit
> > > > > > > >> > > > this
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> behavior?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >  I think all schema changes should be
> done
> > > > only
> > > > > > > >> > explicitly
> > > > > > > >> > > > > except
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> initial
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > schema creation.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > The way I see it is that we should have
> two
> > > > modes:
> > > > > > > >> > > schema-first
> > > > > > > >> > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > schema-last. Schema-first means exactly
> what
> > > > > you've
> > > > > > > >> > > described -
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> schemas
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> are
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > defined and updated explicitly by the
> user.
> > In
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > schema-last
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > mode,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > the user does not deal with schemas, as
> they
> > > are
> > > > > > > >> inferred
> > > > > > > >> > > from
> > > > > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> data
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > inserted into tables. We should definitely
> > not
> > > > mix
> > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > >> > > modes
> > > > > > > >> > > > -
> > > > > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> has
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > be one or another. And it probably makes
> > sense
> > > > to
> > > > > > > >> discuss
> > > > > > > >> > > which
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > mode
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> should
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > be the default one.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Mike.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey
> > > Mashenkov
> > > > <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Hi, Igniters.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > We all know that the current
> QueryEntity
> > > API
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > >> > > > > convenient
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > needs
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > be reworked.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with
> schema
> > > > > > > >> configuration
> > > > > > > >> > > > public
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > API
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Ignite 3.0.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > New schema configuration uses Builder
> > > > pattern,
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > >> > > looks
> > > > > > > >> > > > > more
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > comfortable
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > to use.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > In the PR you will find a 'schema'
> > package
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> API
> > > > > > > >> > > > > itself,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > draft
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > implementation in 'internal'
> > sub-package,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and a test that demonstrates how the
> API
> > > > could
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> used.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Please note:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class
> > > with
> > > > > > static
> > > > > > > >> > > factory
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> methods.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * The implementation is decoupled and
> > can
> > > be
> > > > > > > easily
> > > > > > > >> > > > extracted
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > separate
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > module if we decide to do so.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time)
> > are
> > > > > > missed,
> > > > > > > >> they
> > > > > > > >> > > will
> > > > > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> added
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > lately
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > in separate tickes.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Index configuration extends marker
> > > > interface
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > >> > makes
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> possible
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > implement indexes of new types in
> > plugins.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Hopfully, we could add a persistent
> > > > > geo-indices
> > > > > > > >> support
> > > > > > > >> > > in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> future.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Supposedly, current table schema can
> > be
> > > > > > changed
> > > > > > > >> via
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> builder-like
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > structure as it is done if JOOQ
> project.
> > > See
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 'TableModificationBuilder'
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > details.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have
> > > > > > > 'toBuilder()'
> > > > > > > >> > > > > converter
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> that
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > purpose as it is a Schema Manager
> > > > > responsibility
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > create
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> mutator
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > objects
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > from the current schema,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > but implementing the Schema manager is
> > out
> > > > of
> > > > > > > scope
> > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > >> > > > will
> > > > > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > designed
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > within the next task.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Interfaces implementations are out
> of
> > > > > scope. I
> > > > > > > did
> > > > > > > >> > not
> > > > > > > >> > > > > intend
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > merge
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > them right now, but for
> > test/demostration
> > > > > > > purposes.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > It is NOT the final version and some
> may
> > > be
> > > > > > > changed
> > > > > > > >> > > before
> > > > > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> first
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > release of course.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > For now, we have to agree if we can
> > > proceed
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > >> this
> > > > > > > >> > > > > approach
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> some
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > issues should be resolved at first.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Any thoughts or objections?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Are interfaces good enough to be
> merged
> > > > within
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > current
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> ticket?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> jury.gerzhedowich@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > A little bit my thoughts about
> > unsigned
> > > > > types:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 2. It requires adding new types to
> the
> > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > representation,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > protocol,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > e.t.c.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 3. internal representation should be
> > the
> > > > > same
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > >> we
> > > > > > > >> > > keep
> > > > > > > >> > > > > sign
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> types.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > So
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > will not requires more memory
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 4. User should be aware of specifics
> > > such
> > > > > > types
> > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > platforms
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> which
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > not
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > support unsigned types. For
> example, a
> > > > user
> > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > >> > > derive
> > > > > > > >> > > > -6
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> value
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from
> bits
> > > > > > > perspective
> > > > > > > >> > will
> > > > > > > >> > > > be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> right). I
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > think
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > We shouldn't use more wide type for
> > such
> > > > > > cases,
> > > > > > > >> > > > especially
> > > > > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> will be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > bad
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for unsigned long when we require
> > > returns
> > > > > > > >> BigInteger
> > > > > > > >> > > > type.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 5. Possible it requires some
> > > > suffix/preffix
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> new
> > > > > > > >> > > types
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > like
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > '250u' -
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > it means that 250 is an unsigned
> value
> > > > type.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 6. It requires a little bit more
> > > expensive
> > > > > > > >> comparison
> > > > > > > >> > > > logic
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > indexes
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 7. It requires new comparison logic
> > for
> > > > > > > >> expressions.
> > > > > > > >> > I
> > > > > > > >> > > > > think
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> not
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > possible for the current H2 engine
> and
> > > > > > probably
> > > > > > > >> > > possible
> > > > > > > >> > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> new
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Calcite engine. Need clarification
> > from
> > > > > > anybody
> > > > > > > >> who
> > > > > > > >> > > > > involved
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> this
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > part
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey
> > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Actually, we can support
> comparisons
> > > in
> > > > > 3.0:
> > > > > > > >> once
> > > > > > > >> > we
> > > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> actual
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > type
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > information, we can make proper
> > > runtime
> > > > > > > >> adjustments
> > > > > > > >> > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> conversions
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > treat those values as unsigned -
> it
> > > will
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> just a
> > > > > > > >> > > bit
> > > > > > > >> > > > > more
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > expensive.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32,
> Pavel
> > > > > > Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > SQL range queries it will
> break
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong
> > > results
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality
> > > > > comparisons
> > > > > > > >> and so
> > > > > > > >> > > on
> > > > > > > >> > > > > are
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> broken
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > for unsigned data types, I
> think I
> > > > > > mentioned
> > > > > > > >> this
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > somewhere
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > above.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can
> > > document
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > >> SQL is
> > > > > > > >> > > not
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> supported
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > on
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > those
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > types,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > end of story.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM
> > > Alexey
> > > > > > > >> Goncharuk
> > > > > > > >> > <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Folks, I think this is a
> > > reasonable
> > > > > > > >> request. I
> > > > > > > >> > > > > thought
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> about
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > this
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > when
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but
> > > hesitated
> > > > to
> > > > > > add
> > > > > > > >> > these
> > > > > > > >> > > > > types
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> right
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > away.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > That is how it works in
> Ignite
> > > > since
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > beginning
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> .NET
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > C++
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > :)
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I have some doubts that it
> > > actually
> > > > > > works
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > >> > > > > expected,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> needs
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > some
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > checking (will be glad if my
> > > > concerns
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > >> > false):
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - It's true that equality
> > check
> > > > > works
> > > > > > > >> > > properly,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > but
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> SQL
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > range
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    queries it will break
> unless
> > > some
> > > > > > > special
> > > > > > > >> > care
> > > > > > > >> > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> taken
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> on
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > side:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java
> > > > (byte)255
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > converted
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> -1,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > which
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    break the comparison. Since
> > we
> > > > > don't
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > >> > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> types
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > now,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > I
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > doubt
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    works.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - There is an obvious
> > > > > cross-platform
> > > > > > > data
> > > > > > > >> > loss
> > > > > > > >> > > > > when
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > "intuitive"
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > type
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    mapping is used by a user
> (u8
> > > > > > > >> corresponds to
> > > > > > > >> > > > byte
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> type in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > .NET,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > but
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user
> > will
> > > > have
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> use
> > > > > > > >> > > short
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > type
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Java,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    will also need to take care
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > > range
> > > > > > > >> > check
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > during
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > serialization).
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    think we can even allow to
> > try
> > > to
> > > > > > > >> > deserialize
> > > > > > > >> > > a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > value
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> into
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > arbitrary
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > type,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    but throw an exception if
> the
> > > > range
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> out
> > > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > bounds.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's
> > > > > comments.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating
> the
> > > IEP
> > > > > > once
> > > > > > > >> all
> > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > details
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> are
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > settled
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > here?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19,
> > > Andrey
> > > > > > > >> Mashenkov
> > > > > > > >> > <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I believe uLong values
> beyond
> > > 2^63
> > > > > > can't
> > > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > > >> > > > treated
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> correctly
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > now
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return
> wrong
> > > > > results)
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I think we could make "true"
> > > > support
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > unsigned
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> types,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> but
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > they
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > limitations on the Java
> side.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be
> able
> > > to
> > > > > map
> > > > > > > >> uint64
> > > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > Java
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> long
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > primitive,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > BigInteger only.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > As for indices, we could
> read
> > > > uint64
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> Java
> > > > > > > >> > > > long,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> treat
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > negative
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > values in a different way to
> > > > > preserve
> > > > > > > >> correct
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > ordering.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > These limitations will
> affect
> > > only
> > > > > > mixed
> > > > > > > >> > > > > environments
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> when
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > .Net
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > used to access the data.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Will this solution address
> > your
> > > > > > issues?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45
> > PM
> > > > > Pavel
> > > > > > > >> > Tupitsyn
> > > > > > > >> > > <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is how it works in
> > Ignite
> > > > > since
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > beginning
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> with
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > .NET
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > C++
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > :)
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > You can use unsigned
> > > primitives
> > > > as
> > > > > > > cache
> > > > > > > >> > keys
> > > > > > > >> > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> values,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > as
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > fields
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > properties,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even
> in
> > > > WHERE
> > > > > > x=y
> > > > > > > >> > > clauses)
> > > > > > > >> > > > -
> > > > > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> works
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > transparently
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the users.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing
> and
> > > > treats
> > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > >> > > values
> > > > > > > >> > > > > as
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > corresponding
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > signed
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > However, this abstraction
> > > leaks
> > > > in
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > >> > cases
> > > > > > > >> > > > > only
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> because
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > there
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing
> a
> > > very
> > > > > > > simple
> > > > > > > >> > > change
> > > > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > protocol
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > -
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > add
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the
> > same
> > > > way
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > >> signed
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> counterparts.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
> 5:00
> > > PM
> > > > > > Andrey
> > > > > > > >> > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > >> > > > > <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in
> > > Java
> > > > > > > (bitwise
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> representation
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > same)
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET
> > > class
> > > > > > with a
> > > > > > > >> > uByte
> > > > > > > >> > > > > field
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> map
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > 'uint8'
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > column.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Then you set the field
> > value
> > > > to
> > > > > > > "250"
> > > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > >> > > put
> > > > > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> object
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > into a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > table,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > field value perfectly
> fits
> > > to
> > > > a
> > > > > > > single
> > > > > > > >> > byte
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > 'int8'
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > column.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't
> > > > > deserialize
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > directly
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Java
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > object
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > field
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we
> should
> > > map
> > > > > > uint8
> > > > > > > >> type
> > > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > Java
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 'short'
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > type
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > because the one expected
> > to
> > > > see
> > > > > > > "250"
> > > > > > > >> as
> > > > > > > >> > a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > value
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> which
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > fit
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > signed type.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will
> > need
> > > a
> > > > > > > >> BigInteger
> > > > > > > >> > > > field
> > > > > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Java.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't
> > treat
> > > > > > column
> > > > > > > >> value
> > > > > > > >> > > as
> > > > > > > >> > > > > Java
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 'byte'
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > as
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > is,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > after reading you will
> > get a
> > > > > > > negative
> > > > > > > >> > > value,
> > > > > > > >> > > > so
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> should
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > cast
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > short
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to
> > > > > BigInteger
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > > uint64)
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type
> > > will
> > > > > > > require
> > > > > > > >> a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > different
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > comparator.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look
> > > simpler.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
> > 4:23
> > > > PM
> > > > > > > Pavel
> > > > > > > >> > > > Tupitsyn
> > > > > > > >> > > > > <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think range
> > > > narrowing
> > > > > > is a
> > > > > > > >> good
> > > > > > > >> > > > idea.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any
> problems
> > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> simple
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > described?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020
> at
> > > 4:01
> > > > > PM
> > > > > > > >> Andrey
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with
> > > > narrowing
> > > > > > > range
> > > > > > > >> > for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> types
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > then
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > we
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > add a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > constraint for
> > unsigned
> > > > > types
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > >> > schema
> > > > > > > >> > > > > level
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> (like
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > nullability
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > flag)
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as
> > signed
> > > > > types
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > >> > > > storage.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a
> > > > separate
> > > > > > > >> storage
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> type-system
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > binary
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however
> > > most
> > > > of
> > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > >> > will
> > > > > > > >> > > > > match
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > 1
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 1
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > with
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > storage
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (native)
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you
> will
> > > > either
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > >> a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > separate
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> type
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> id
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > or
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > treat
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > serialized
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a
> > schema
> > > > > > (signed
> > > > > > > >> or
> > > > > > > >> > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> flag).
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users
> can
> > > > ever
> > > > > > > >> foresee
> > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> consequences
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > using
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used
> to
> > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > >> types
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > perfectly
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> works
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > with
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > database,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into
> > > Ignite
> > > > > > > >> successor
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > confession
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> with
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > our
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > "native"
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types
> > support.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds
> > that
> > > > he
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > >> use
> > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > power
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Ignite
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Compute
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new
> > app.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user
> will
> > > > > either
> > > > > > > >> fail to
> > > > > > > >> > > use
> > > > > > > >> > > > > his
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > unsigned
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > data
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > due
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > face performance
> > issues
> > > > due
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > natural
> > > > > > > >> > > > Java
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> type
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > system
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > limitations
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to
> > > > > > BigInteger.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that
> > natively
> > > > > > > supported
> > > > > > > >> > types
> > > > > > > >> > > > > with
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> possible
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > value
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > ranges
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > limitations should
> be
> > > > known.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, the only
> question
> > is
> > > > > what
> > > > > > > >> > trade-off
> > > > > > > >> > > > we
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> found
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > acceptable:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > narrowing
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range
> or
> > > use
> > > > > > types
> > > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > > >> > > wider
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> range on
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > systems
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > like
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Java.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020
> > at
> > > > 3:25
> > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > >> Igor
> > > > > > > >> > > > > Sapego <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think
> it
> > > is
> > > > > not
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > > >> hard
> > > > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> implement
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > comparison
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java,
> so
> > > it
> > > > > does
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > >> > seem
> > > > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > be a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> big
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > issue
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage
> of
> > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > >> types
> > > > > > > >> > > from
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> - I
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > think,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > if
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is
> > > going
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > interact
> > > > > > > >> > > > with
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> from
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > he
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > knows
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are
> for
> > > use
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > >> > > platforms
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > where
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> they
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > have
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > native
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > widely
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++
> or
> > > > .NET,
> > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > >> > > users
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> currently
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > have
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > make a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > manual
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > casting
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop
> > > using
> > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > >> > > types
> > > > > > > >> > > > > when
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> they
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > use
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Ignite.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24,
> 2020
> > > at
> > > > > 3:06
> > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > >> > Pavel
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is
> much
> > > > > > simpler:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol
> > > support
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> those
> > > > > > > >> > > > types
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > (basically,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > just
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > add
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as
> > > long
> > > > in
> > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > >> > > > (bitwise
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > representation
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > same)
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does
> not
> > > have
> > > > > > > >> unsigned
> > > > > > > >> > > > > integers,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> so
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> we
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > can
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > simply
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > say
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value
> > > > relative
> > > > > > > >> > comparison
> > > > > > > >> > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > not
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > supported
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (equality
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24,
> > 2020
> > > > at
> > > > > > 2:40
> > > > > > > >> PM
> > > > > > > >> > > > Andrey
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Mashenkov
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel
> > and
> > > > > Igor.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your
> > ideas
> > > to
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > >> i8 or
> > > > > > > >> > > > int8
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> instead of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Integer.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming
> > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > >> address
> > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > issue.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree
> internal
> > > > types
> > > > > > > >> should
> > > > > > > >> > be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > portable
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > across
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > systems
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> unsigned
> > > > type
> > > > > > > >> support.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue
> > > here
> > > > is
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > >> > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> types
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > cover
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > ranges.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume
> we
> > > want
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > introduce a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> uLong.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't
> look
> > > > like a
> > > > > > big
> > > > > > > >> deal
> > > > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > add
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> uLong
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > type
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > support
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > storage
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to
> a
> > 8
> > > > > bytes
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > then
> > > > > > > >> > > > use
> > > > > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> e.g.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > .Net
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > only.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we
> could
> > > > > support
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > > >> > > e.g.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Java?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in
> > mind
> > > > > Long
> > > > > > > >> range
> > > > > > > >> > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > about
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> (2^-63
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > ..
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 2^63)
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > range
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first
> > > option
> > > > is
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > restrict
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > range
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> (0
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > ..
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > 2^63).
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no
> > > > > conversion,
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > >> > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > look
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> like
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 'real'
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support.
> Things
> > go
> > > > > worse
> > > > > > > >> when
> > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > user
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> use
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > uByte,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > limitation
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte
> > totally
> > > > > > > unusable.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second
> > one
> > > is
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > map
> > > > > > > >> > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> types
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > type
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > wider
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint
> for
> > > > > > negative
> > > > > > > >> > values.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > E.g.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> uLong to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > BigInteger.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't
> use
> > > > > > primitive
> > > > > > > >> Java
> > > > > > > >> > > > type
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Long
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > here.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > However,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > still
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to
> > store
> > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > in 8
> > > > > > > >> > > bytes,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > but
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> have a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > special
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > comparator
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types
> > to
> > > > > avoid
> > > > > > > >> > unwanted
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > deserialization.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov
> 24,
> > > 2020
> > > > > at
> > > > > > > >> 2:04 PM
> > > > > > > >> > > > Pavel
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Tupitsyn
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's
> > get
> > > > rid
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >> > "long,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > short,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> byte"
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use
> > Rust
> > > > > style,
> > > > > > > >> which
> > > > > > > >> > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > concise
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > unambiguous:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16,
> > > u16,
> > > > > etc
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov
> > 24,
> > > > 2020
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > > >> 1:58
> > > > > > > >> > PM
> > > > > > > >> > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Sapego <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally
> > > > support
> > > > > > > that.
> > > > > > > >> > Also,
> > > > > > > >> > > > if
> > > > > > > >> > > > > we
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> are
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > aiming
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger
> > > > > > > >> > > platform-independance,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our
> > schemas
> > > > we
> > > > > > may
> > > > > > > >> want
> > > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > support
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > bit-notation
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (int32,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can
> > > mean
> > > > a
> > > > > > > >> different
> > > > > > > >> > > > type
> > > > > > > >> > > > > on
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > different
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > platforms
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them
> > (happens
> > > > > often
> > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > >> > > using
> > > > > > > >> > > > > ODBC
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > example).
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best
> > Regards,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue,
> Nov
> > > 24,
> > > > > 2020
> > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > >> > 1:34
> > > > > > > >> > > PM
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Pavel
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Tupitsyn
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Igniters,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think
> we
> > > > > should
> > > > > > > >> support
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> data
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > types:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte,
> > > uShort,
> > > > > > uInt,
> > > > > > > >> > uLong
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java
> does
> > > not
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > >> them,
> > > > > > > >> > > but
> > > > > > > >> > > > > many
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> other
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > languages
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > do,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with
> > the
> > > > > > growing
> > > > > > > >> > number
> > > > > > > >> > > > of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > thin
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > clients
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > this
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> > example,
> > > > in
> > > > > > > >> current
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Ignite.NET
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > implementation
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> signed
> > > > > > > internally,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this
> > is
> > > a
> > > > > huge
> > > > > > > >> pain
> > > > > > > >> > > when
> > > > > > > >> > > > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> comes
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > metadata,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > binary
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is
> > easy
> > > to
> > > > > > > >> > deserialize
> > > > > > > >> > > > int
> > > > > > > >> > > > > as
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> uint
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > when
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > you
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > class,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > objections?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue,
> > Nov
> > > > 24,
> > > > > > 2020
> > > > > > > >> at
> > > > > > > >> > > 12:28
> > > > > > > >> > > > > PM
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Andrey
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good
> > > point.
> > > > > Both
> > > > > > > >> > > > serializers
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > use
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > reflection
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> However,
> > > we
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > >> allow
> > > > > > > >> > > > users
> > > > > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > configure
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > static
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > along
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > mode,
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > >> still
> > > > > > > >> > > need
> > > > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> validate
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > user
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > classes
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > client
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > latest
> > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > grid
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > reflection
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One
> can
> > > > find a
> > > > > > few
> > > > > > > >> > > articles
> > > > > > > >> > > > > on
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > internet
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > on
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> GraalVM.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll
> > > create
> > > > a
> > > > > > task
> > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > supporting
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > GraalVM,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > maybe
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> familiar
> > > > with
> > > > > > > >> GraalVM
> > > > > > > >> > > will
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> suggest a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > solution
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll
> do
> > > it a
> > > > > bit
> > > > > > > >> later.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no
> > > > > workaround
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > found,
> > > > > > > >> > > > we
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> could
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > allow
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > users
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > serializer,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > >> don't
> > > > > > > >> > > > think
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > good
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > idea
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > expose
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> classes
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> public.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On
> Tue,
> > > Nov
> > > > > 24,
> > > > > > > >> 2020 at
> > > > > > > >> > > > 2:55
> > > > > > > >> > > > > AM
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Denis
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > Andrey,
> > > > > thanks
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > update,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does
> > any
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > serializers
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> take
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> into
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > consideration
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > native-image-generation
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> feature of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > GraalVM?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> > the
> > > > > > current
> > > > > > > >> > binary
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> marshaller,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > we
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > can't
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > even
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > generate
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > the
> > > > code
> > > > > > > using
> > > > > > > >> > our
> > > > > > > >> > > > thin
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> client
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > APIs.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Denis
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On
> > Mon,
> > > > Nov
> > > > > > 23,
> > > > > > > >> 2020
> > > > > > > >> > at
> > > > > > > >> > > > > 4:39
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > AM
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Andrey
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> I'd
> > > like
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > continue
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> discussion
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > IEP-54
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Hope
> > > > > > everyone
> > > > > > > >> who
> > > > > > > >> > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> interested
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > had a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > chance
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > proposal
> > > > > > [1].
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > Please,
> > > > do
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > >> > > hesitate
> > > > > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> ask
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > questions
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > share
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> I've
> > > > > > prepared
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > >> > > > prototype
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > serializer
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > data
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > described
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > the
> > > > > > > proposal.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > prototy,
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > >> > > compared
> > > > > > > >> > > > 2
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> approaches
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > (de)serialize
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> uses
> > > > java
> > > > > > > >> > > > > reflection/unsafe
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> API
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > similar
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Ignite
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> and
> > > the
> > > > > > second
> > > > > > > >> one
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > generates
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > serializer
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > Janino
> > > > > > library
> > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> compilation.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > Second
> > > > one
> > > > > > > shows
> > > > > > > >> > > better
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> results
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > benchmarks.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > think
> > > > we
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > >> go
> > > > > > > >> > > with
> > > > > > > >> > > > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > default
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > serializer
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > reflection-based
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > implementation
> > > > > > > >> as a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > fallback
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> if
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > someone
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> one.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > WDYT?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > There
> > > > are
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > >> number
> > > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > tasks
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> under
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > umbrella
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ticket
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > assignee.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> BTW,
> > > I'm
> > > > > > going
> > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > >> > > > create
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > tickets
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > manager
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > implementation,
> > > > > > > >> but
> > > > > > > >> > > > would
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> like
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > clarify
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > details.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > thought
> > > > > > > >> > > schemaManager
> > > > > > > >> > > > > on
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> each
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > node
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > should
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > held:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>  1.
> > > > Local
> > > > > > > >> mapping
> > > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > "schema
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > version"
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > <-->
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > validated
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > classes
> > > > > > pair.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>  2.
> > > > > > > >> Cluster-wide
> > > > > > > >> > > > schema
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> changes
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > history.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On
> > the
> > > > > > client
> > > > > > > >> side.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > Before
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> any
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > key-value
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > operation
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > validate a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > schema
> > > > > for a
> > > > > > > >> given
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> pair.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If
> > > there
> > > > > is
> > > > > > no
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > local-mapping
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> exists
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > given
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > cluster
> > > > > wide
> > > > > > > >> schema
> > > > > > > >> > > > has a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> more
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > recent
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > version
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > should
> > > > be
> > > > > > > >> validated
> > > > > > > >> > > > > against
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > latest
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> updated/actualized.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If
> > an
> > > > > object
> > > > > > > >> > doesn't
> > > > > > > >> > > > fit
> > > > > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > latest
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > depends
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > mode:
> > > > > either
> > > > > > > >> fail
> > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> operation
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > ('strict'
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > mode)
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > created
> > > > > and
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > >> new
> > > > > > > >> > > > schema
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> version
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > should
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > propagated
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On
> > the
> > > > > > server
> > > > > > > >> side
> > > > > > > >> > we
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > usually
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> have
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > no
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > classes
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > tuples.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As
> > > > schema
> > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > >> > > > history
> > > > > > > >> > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > available
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > tuple
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > is
> > > > > > possible
> > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > >> > > > upgrade
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > any
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > received
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > tuple
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > last
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> without
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > desialization.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Thus
> > > we
> > > > > > could
> > > > > > > >> allow
> > > > > > > >> > > > nodes
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> send
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > pairs
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> they
> > > > > didn't
> > > > > > > >> > receive a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> update
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > yet)
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > reverting
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> changes
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> made
> > > by
> > > > a
> > > > > > node
> > > > > > > >> with
> > > > > > > >> > > > newer
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> classes.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > Alex,
> > > > Val,
> > > > > > > Ivan
> > > > > > > >> did
> > > > > > > >> > > you
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > mean
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > same?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> [1]
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> [2]
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> [3]
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On
> > > Thu,
> > > > > Sep
> > > > > > > 17,
> > > > > > > >> > 2020
> > > > > > > >> > > at
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > 9:21
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> AM
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Ivan
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > Folks,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > Please
> > > > > do
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > >> > > ignore
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> history.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> We
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > had
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > ideas.
> > > > > We
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > >> > > resume
> > > > > > > >> > > > > it.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > [1]
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > 2020-09-10
> > > > > > > >> 0:08
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Denis
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Magda
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > Val,
> > > > > > makes
> > > > > > > >> > sense,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > thanks
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > explaining.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > Agree
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > >> we
> > > > > > > >> > > need
> > > > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> have a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > separate
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > "table"
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > "cache"
> > > > > > > >> terms
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> substitution.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > I'll
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > appreciate
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> thread
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > sharing
> > > > > > > >> > pointers
> > > > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > any
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > relevant
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > IEPs
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > reasoning
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > suggested
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > change.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > -
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > Denis
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > On
> > > > > Tue,
> > > > > > > Sep
> > > > > > > >> 8,
> > > > > > > >> > > 2020
> > > > > > > >> > > > > at
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 6:01
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> PM
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>
> > > Hi
> > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> I
> > > > > guess
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > wording
> > > > > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> IEP
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > little
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > bit
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> means
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>
> > > > that
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > >> > should
> > > > > > > >> > > > not
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> create
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > nested
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > POJOs,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > into a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>
> > > > > single
> > > > > > > POJO
> > > > > > > >> > that
> > > > > > > >> > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> mapped
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > nested
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>
> > > > POJOs
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > >> not
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > supported.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>
> > > > Alex,
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> this
> > > > > > > >> > > > > correct?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Please
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > let
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > me
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > something.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>
> > > As
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > "cache"
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> term, I
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > agree
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > that
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>
> > > > what
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > >> > > > replace
> > > > > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> with.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > "Table"
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > tightly
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> but
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>
> > > SQL
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > optional
> > > > > > > >> > > in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > our
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> case.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Do
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > you
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > want
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > create a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > discussion
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>
> > > > about
> > > > > > > this?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>
> > > > -Val
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>
> > > On
> > > > > Tue,
> > > > > > > >> Sep 8,
> > > > > > > >> > > > 2020
> > > > > > > >> > > > > at
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 4:37 PM
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Denis
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > Val,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > I've
> > > > > > > >> checked
> > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > IEP
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> again
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > have a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > questions.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > > > > Arbitrary
> > > > > > > >> > > nested
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> objects
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > collections
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > > > values.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > > > Nested
> > > > > > > >> > POJOs
> > > > > > > >> > > > > should
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> either
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > inlined
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > BLOBs
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > > Could
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > >> > > > provide a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > DDL
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> code
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > snippet
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > showing
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > POJOs
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > > > supposed
> > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > >> > > work?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > > Also,
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > >> keep
> > > > > > > >> > > > using
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> terms
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > "cache"
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > the
> > > > > > > right
> > > > > > > >> > time
> > > > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> discuss
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> an
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > alternate
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> those
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > too?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > > > > >> Personally,
> > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > should
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > stay
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > > > > >> considering
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > that
> > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > >> > one
> > > > > > > >> > > > of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > primary
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > APIs
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > supported
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > > > > >> > out-of-the-box.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > -
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > On
> > > > > > Mon,
> > > > > > > >> Sep
> > > > > > > >> > 7,
> > > > > > > >> > > > 2020
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > at
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 12:26
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > PM
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > > > Ivan,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > I
> > > > > > see
> > > > > > > >> your
> > > > > > > >> > > > > point. I
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> agree
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > that
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > with
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > automatic
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > into
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > > > > >> schema-last
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> territory.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > > > > >> Actually,
> > > > > > > >> > if
> > > > > > > >> > > we
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> support
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > automatic
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > evolution,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > support
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > > > > >> creating a
> > > > > > > >> > > > cache
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> without
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > schema
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > inferring
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > > > > insert.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > In
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > > > other
> > > > > > > >> > words,
> > > > > > > >> > > we
> > > > > > > >> > > > > can
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> have
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > both
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > "schema-last"
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > modes.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > > > > Alexey,
> > > > > > > >> > what
> > > > > > > >> > > do
> > > > > > > >> > > > > you
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> think?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > > -Val
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > On
> > > > > > > Mon,
> > > > > > > >> Sep
> > > > > > > >> > > 7,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > 2020
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> at
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 5:59
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > AM
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Alexey
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Ivan,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank
> > > > > > > >> > you,
> > > > > > > >> > > I
> > > > > > > >> > > > > got
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> your
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > concern
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > now.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > As
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> regarding
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > terminology,
> > > > > > > >> > > > I
> > > > > > > >> > > > > am
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > absolutely
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > fine
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > whatever
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > fits
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > approach
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > best.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Dynamic
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > or
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > evolving
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> will
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > make
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > corresponding
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> changes
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > IEP
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > once
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > settle
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > пн,
> > > > > > > 7
> > > > > > > >> > сент.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > 2020
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> г. в
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 11:33,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Ivan
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > > >> Val,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> Thank
> > > > > > > >> > you
> > > > > > > >> > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> your
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > answer!
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > little
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > bit
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > different.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > evolution
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > definitely
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> should be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> difference
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > "how
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> schema
> > > > > > > >> > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> updated".
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> I
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > treat a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > common
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > schema-first.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > > Schema
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > data
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> manipulation
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > operations
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > clearly
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > > > enables
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > interesting
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > capabilities,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > preventing
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > changes
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > mistaken
> > > > > > > >> > > > data
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > operations,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > restricting
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > change
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> schema.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > Schema-first
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> means
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > that
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > exists
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > > stored
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > data
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > compliant
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> it -
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > that's
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A
> > > > > > > >> > > > schema-last
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> approach
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > mentioned
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > schema
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> exists,
> > > > > > > >> > > but
> > > > > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > inferred
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > from
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > data.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> similar
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > proposing
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> approach?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > >> I
> > > > > > > >> > > would
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > like
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > say,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > that
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > my
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> mostly
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> about
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > terminology.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > And
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > suppose
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > if
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > confuses
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> might
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > confused
> > > > > > > >> > > as
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> well. My
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > feeling
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > closer
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > may
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > evolving
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > schema".
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > 2020-09-07
> > > > > > > >> > > > > 0:47
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > > >> > > Ivan,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > >> > don't
> > > > > > > >> > > > see
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > an
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> issue
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > with
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > that.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > schema
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > > exists
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > advance
> > > > > > > >> > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > stored
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > data
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > compliant
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> that's
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > proposed.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> There
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > are
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > no
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > restrictions
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> changes
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> schema.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> -Val
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On
> > > > > > > >> > Sat,
> > > > > > > >> > > > Sep
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > 5,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 2020
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > at
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > 9:52
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ivan
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > Alexey,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> I
> > > > > > > >> > am a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > little
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> bit
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > confused
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > > > > conforms
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> to a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > survey
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> (see
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > part
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > X
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Semi
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Structured
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > really
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > > > treat
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> a
> > > > > > > >> > > > "dynamic
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> schema"
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > approach
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > as a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > kind
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > "schema-first"?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > 2020-09-02
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 1:53
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > However,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> could
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > please
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > between
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > ORM?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > Is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > there
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> use
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > case
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > Ignite
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > (I
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> haven't
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > seen
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > one
> > > > > > > >> > > > so
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> far)?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> If
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > so,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > what
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Ignite
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > side
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > support
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > this?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > In
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > my
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> which
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > have.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > Am
> > > > > > > >> > > I
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> missing
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > something?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > Good
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > point,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> yes,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > if
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > all
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > ORM
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> SQL
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > APIs
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > internally,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> then
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > they
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > can
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > easily
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > translate
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > object
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > into
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > an
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> INSERT/UPDATE
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > statement
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > lists
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > fields.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > > > > Luckily,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > our
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > Spring
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > integration
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > based
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > APIs
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > needs
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > > >> > > be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> improved
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > once
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > supported.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > That
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > solve
> > > > > > > >> > > > a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > ton
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > usability
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > I
> > > > > > > >> > > > would
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> revise
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> dev
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > phase.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Can't
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> say
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > if
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > it's
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > used
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > getting
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > traction
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > sure.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > @Michael
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Pollind,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > I'll
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > loop
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > long
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > started
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > > > > working
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > Ignite
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> support
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Micornaut
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > came
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > across
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> some
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > challenges.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > watch
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > discussion.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > That's
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > > what
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > coming
> > > > > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Ignite
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 3.0.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > -
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > Denis
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > On
> > > > > > > >> > > > Mon,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Aug
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 31,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > 2020
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > at
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > 5:11
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > Hi
> > > > > > > >> > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > Generally
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > speaking, I
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> schema-first
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > approach
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> natively
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > addresses
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > issue
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > if
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > duplicate
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> value
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > because
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > schema
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> will be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > created
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > cache,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> object,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> happens
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> now.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Basically,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > schema
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > define
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > primary
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > key
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > or
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > not,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > which
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> fields
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > are
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > included
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> API
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > that
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > we
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > would
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > have
> > > > > > > >> > > > > must
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > compliant
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > this,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> easy
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > > work
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > with
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > data
> > > > > > > >> > > > as
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> with a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > set
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > records,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> key-value
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > pairs.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > However,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> could
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > please
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > between
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > ORM?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > Is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > there
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> use
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > case
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > Ignite
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > (I
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> haven't
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > seen
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > one
> > > > > > > >> > > > so
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> far)?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> If
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > so,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > what
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Ignite
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > side
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > support
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > this?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > In
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > my
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> which
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > have.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > Am
> > > > > > > >> > > I
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> missing
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > something?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > -Val
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > On
> > > > > > > >> > > > Mon,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Aug
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 31,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 2020
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > at
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > 2:08
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > Val,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > I
> > > > > > > >> > > > > would
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> propose
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > adding
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > point
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > motivations
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > list
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > related
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > ORM
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > frameworks
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > > > > Hibernate,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > Micronaut
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > many
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> others.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Presently,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > storage
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > engine
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requires
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > distinguish
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> key
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > > > > objects
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > from
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > value
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> ones
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> that
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > complicate
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > those
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > ORM
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> frameworks
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> (especially
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> if
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > key
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > object
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > comprises
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > fields).
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > More
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > on
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> can
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > found
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> here:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > It
> > > > > > > >> > > > > will
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> nice
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > if
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> allows
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> us
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > work
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> with
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > single
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> entity
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > object
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > when
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > comes
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > need
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > split
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > entity
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> into
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > key
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > value.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > 3.0
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > has
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > all
> > > > > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > essential
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > public
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > APIs
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > single-entity
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > based
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > approach.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > What
> > > > > > > >> > > > > do
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> you
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > think?
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > -
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > Denis
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > On
> > > > > > > >> > > > > Fri,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Aug
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 28,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > 2020
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > at
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > 3:50
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Igniters,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > One
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > big
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proposed
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > > > > >> so-called
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> "schema-first
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > approach".
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > To
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > started
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> writing
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > IEP
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > for
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> this
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > change:
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> take a
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > look
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > let
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > > > > immediate
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> thoughts,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> suggestions,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > or
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > objections.
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > -Val
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Best
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > regards,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Ivan
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best
> > > > > > > >> > > > regards,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ivan
> > > > > > > >> > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >>>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> --
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > Best
> > > > > > > regards,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > Ivan
> > > > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Best
> > > > > > regards,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > Andrey
> > > > V.
> > > > > > > >> Mashenkov
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best
> > > > regards,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey
> > V.
> > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V.
> > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > --
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > --
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > --
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > > > --
> > > > > > > >> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> > --
> > > > > > > >> > Best regards,
> > > > > > > >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>]

Hi Ilya,

Thanks for the answer. I like the idea with "re-packing".
You suggest re-pack to larger sizes, that can cause up to 4 array copying,
however, this could be improved.

We can start with 4-bytes offset.
Then once we have finish writing a chunk (key or value), we check if
offsets fits into smaller type,
then compact vartable and shift chunk data.

If we will write 'sizes' instead 'offsets' or write relative offsets (e.g.
from data block begin), then we'll not need to recalculate them. but just
convert the types.
We'll not need to create a new array for shifting the data.

On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 12:40 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <il...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello!
>
> If we have determined that next varstring is too long to fit in 1-2 bytes
> index, we can re-pack the whole object from scratch with 2-4 bytes index.
>
> Such as:
>
> We write all fixlen fields in the beginning.
> We start to write first varlen string. Accumulated len is <255 so we use
> single byte length
> We start to write second varlen string. Accumulated len is now >255 but
> <64k so we re-pack the first varlen string with 2 byte length also.
> We start to write third varlen (let's say it's byte[] blob). Accumulated
> len is suddenly >64k so we re-pack already written varlen fields to use 4
> byte lengths/offsets.
>
> The overhead here is not as great as you could expect. When reading, we
> already know total varlen fields section length so we also know how many
> bytes size offsets take.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Ilya Kasnacheev
>
>
> вт, 25 мая 2021 г. в 16:40, Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>:
>
> > >
> > > I never said that you can predict string size.
> >
> > You suggest to use offsets use 1-2-4 bytes based on overall varlen
> section
> > size.
> > Actually, we can't predict varlen section size if a string column defined
> > before serializing strings.
> >
> > Do you suggest use the smallest possible offset size if no columns of
> > string type are defined,
> > but fallback to 4-byte if a string column goes into play?
> >
> > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 6:59 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello!
> > >
> > > I never said that you can predict string size. Strings are definitely
> > > varlen. You don't know string length when looking at object schema, I
> > don't
> > > even see why char-to-byte mapping is relevant here.
> > >
> > > What do you think about the approach where offsets use 1-2-4 bytes
> based
> > on
> > > overall varlen section size, which is known in advance as I assume?
> > >
> > > With compression, some optimizations may be possible since you can
> > compress
> > > blocks of data and then concatenate these compressed fragments. So you
> > can
> > > say that "I want 40-th byte of 3rd fragment" but it sounds like an
> > overkill
> > > mostly.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > --
> > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > >
> > >
> > > чт, 20 мая 2021 г. в 18:23, Andrey Mashenkov <
> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > >:
> > >
> > > > Hi Ilya,
> > > >
> > > > Not yet, we can't predict string size [1] as a character may be
> encoded
> > > in
> > > > 1-4 bytes.
> > > > So, we could either use a heuristic or serialize every string into an
> > > array
> > > > at first then assemble a row and copy the array into the row buffer.
> > > >
> > > > Good point, we can skip vartable for the first varlen field.
> > > > We have a similar ticket [2] for the case with a single varlen. I'll
> > fix
> > > > the description to omit a first varlen offset.
> > > >
> > > > Agree, compression looks tricky and ineffective in this case.
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4385623/bytes-of-a-string-in-java/4385653
> > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14746
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 5:58 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > > ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello!
> > > > >
> > > > > How about:
> > > > >
> > > > > First, all fields for which we know their specific order and size
> go,
> > > > such
> > > > > as byte, short, int, long, boolean. This means that any short field
> > > will
> > > > > take just 2 bytes with no padding.
> > > > > Then, all var-len fields go, such as nested object, strings, etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > After that, we know total object size already, right?
> > > > > If size <= 256, then all offsets are 1 byte unsigned.
> > > > > If size < 65k, then all offsets are 2 byte.
> > > > > Else, all offsets are 4 byte.
> > > > >
> > > > > We can count offsets starting from the first byle after constant
> > fields
> > > > > section and offsets section.
> > > > > For the first varlen field, the offset is always 0, so we may skip
> > this
> > > > one
> > > > > and start with offset of the second var field.
> > > > >
> > > > > For compression it is trickier. I suggest not having any explicit
> > > support
> > > > > for compression right here, so that later on compression may use a
> > > > > different object layout to be more efficient.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > --
> > > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ср, 19 мая 2021 г. в 16:43, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've create a ticket [1] for large row support.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We use 2-bytes offsets for varlen fields that are supposed to be
> > > large
> > > > > > enough.
> > > > > > AFAIK, some users use multi-MB values and 64k per Row looks like
> a
> > > > strong
> > > > > > limitation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, we have either to increase offset_size up to 4-bytes or use
> > some
> > > > > > advanced mechanics for compression or adaptive offset_size.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Increasing offset size may add overhead for keys like next:
> > > > > > class Key {
> > > > > >    int id;
> > > > > >    String str; // Some short string code.
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. Compression will require table to be decompressed on every
> > varlen
> > > > > column
> > > > > > access, e.g. for comparison purposes while index scan.
> > > > > > Also, we may need to pre-calculate compressed table size to avoid
> > > > buffer
> > > > > > copying (shrinking or extending) during row assembling.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3. Adaptive offset_size implies row size estimation.
> > > > > > We already do to reduce the probability of buffer expanding, but
> we
> > > > need
> > > > > a
> > > > > > high margin for this purpose.
> > > > > > 'String' values size is a hard part as String character may be
> > > encoded
> > > > > into
> > > > > > 1-4 bytes depending on Charset.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Usually, a user don't want to care about Column length limitation
> > and
> > > > > chars
> > > > > > collation.
> > > > > > So, we can expect a Java default behavior will be used in most
> > cases:
> > > > > > 'unlimited' string size with up to 4-bytes characters support.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Possible strategies
> > > > > > 3.1 Introduce 'Collation' for string and validate all the chars
> on
> > > row
> > > > > > assembling and rely on the user limited column length.
> > > > > > Thus, we can use varlen limits (+ collation for strings) to
> > estimate
> > > > row
> > > > > > size and pre-calculate offset_size to keep it within the schema.
> > > > > > 3.2 Introduce more row flags for different offset sizes (byte,
> > short,
> > > > > int)
> > > > > > and calculate row size right before assembling for choosing
> > > appropriate
> > > > > > offset_size.
> > > > > > Heuristics for strings using collation is also applicable here
> and
> > > keep
> > > > > > algorithm complexity independent from the data length, but the
> > schema
> > > > > only.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I like an approach '3.2' because we already estimate row size.
> > > > > > Any thoughts?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14743
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 7:25 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > I've prepared PR [1] with Public Table API for final review.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Main points
> > > > > > > There are 4 projection interfaces over Table for different
> > > use-cases
> > > > > > > (Plain record vs Key-Value and POJO vs Binary object) declaring
> > > > > > synchronous
> > > > > > > and asynchronous methods.
> > > > > > > Async method returns IgniteFuture as there is no consensus on
> > > > > > IgniteFuture
> > > > > > > vs JDK CompletableFuture yet.
> > > > > > > API implementation is incomplete, it just an example of how it
> > > could
> > > > be
> > > > > > > done and will be implemented in future tasks.
> > > > > > > Tuple/TupleAssembler renamed to Row/RowAssembler. Now Tuple is
> > > just a
> > > > > > > dictionary representing a subset of columns, while Row is a
> > > > > schema-aware
> > > > > > > object containing key and value columns respectively to the
> data
> > > > > layout.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:26 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> I see, thanks.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Let's discuss the return type - Future is not the one to use.
> > > > > > >> We should return CompletionStage, CompletableFuture, or
> > introduce
> > > > our
> > > > > > own
> > > > > > >> interface.
> > > > > > >> We agreed on the last one (custom interface) for thin clients:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/IEP-51-Java-Thin-Client-Async-API-td48900.html
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I believe that for Ignite 3.0 we should have the following:
> > > > > > >> public interface IgniteFuture<T> extends Future<T>,
> > > > > CompletionStage<T> {
> > > > > > >>     // No-op.
> > > > > > >> }
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Thoughts?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:16 AM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > >> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > Pavel,
> > > > > > >> > There are 2 PR's for the ticket[1] with two different APIs
> > > > > suggested.
> > > > > > >> > Please, take a look at PR [2].
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14035
> > > > > > >> > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/69
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:11 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > Andrey, I can't find any async methods,
> > > > > > >> > > can you please check if the changes are pushed?
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 10:06 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > >> > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > Pavel, good point.
> > > > > > >> > > > Thanks. I've added async methods.
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 2:29 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > >> ptupitsyn@apache.org>
> > > > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > What about corresponding async APIs, do we add them
> now
> > or
> > > > > > later?
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 8:11 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > >> > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi Igniters.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > I've created a PR for Table access API [1].
> > > > > > >> > > > > > This is an initial version. So, any
> > > suggestions\objections
> > > > > are
> > > > > > >> > > > welcomed.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to write your comments
> and\or
> > > > > examples
> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > >> > > > PR.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > Ignite-api module contains API classes, e.g.
> TableView
> > > > > classes
> > > > > > >> as
> > > > > > >> > > > > > projections for a table for different purposes.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > Ignite-table contains dummy implementation and
> Example
> > > > class
> > > > > > >> > > explained
> > > > > > >> > > > > how
> > > > > > >> > > > > > it is supposed to be used.
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > Also, I'm still waiting for any feedback for Schema
> > > > > > >> configuration
> > > > > > >> > > > public
> > > > > > >> > > > > > API PR [2].
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/33
> > > > > > >> > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:05 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > I've updated a PR regarding your feedback [1].
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:58 AM Alexey Goncharuk
> <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Folks,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I updated the IEP to contain the missing pieces;
> > > > > actually,
> > > > > > >> most
> > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> questions here were covered by the text. Please
> let
> > > me
> > > > > know
> > > > > > >> if
> > > > > > >> > > there
> > > > > > >> > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> something still missing or unclear.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> чт, 31 дек. 2020 г. в 12:48, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Mikhail and Igniters,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Thanks for your comments. The questions are
> > > > reasonable,
> > > > > > >> > though I
> > > > > > >> > > > > think
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> all
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > concerns are addressed by the IEP as Val
> > > mentioned. I
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > >> > > update
> > > > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > document according to your questions in the
> > > following
> > > > > > week
> > > > > > >> or
> > > > > > >> > > so,
> > > > > > >> > > > so
> > > > > > >> > > > > > we
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> can
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > have a constructive discussion further.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > ср, 30 дек. 2020 г. в 11:45, Michael Cherkasov
> <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > michael.cherkasov@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Hi Val, Andrey,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> thank you for clarifying.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> I still have a few comments.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 1. one table == one schema. KV vs SQL:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Looks like all agreed that KV is just a
> special
> > > case
> > > > > of
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> > > regular
> > > > > > >> > > > > > table
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> with (blob,blob) schema.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> I worry about the case when the user starts
> from
> > > KV
> > > > > case
> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > >> > > > later
> > > > > > >> > > > > > will
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> try
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to expand it and try to leverage SQL for the
> > > > existing
> > > > > KV
> > > > > > >> > table
> > > > > > >> > > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> won't be
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> able to do so and will require to reload data.
> > > which
> > > > > > isn't
> > > > > > >> > > > > convenient
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> sometimes not even possible. Is it possible to
> > > > > extract a
> > > > > > >> new
> > > > > > >> > > > field
> > > > > > >> > > > > > from
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> (blob, blob) schema and apply index on it?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 2. Could you please also list all ways of
> schema
> > > > > > >> definition
> > > > > > >> > in
> > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> IEP? It
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> significant change and I bet the main point of
> > > this
> > > > > IEP,
> > > > > > >> > > everyone
> > > > > > >> > > > > > hates
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> QueryEntities, they are difficult to manage
> and
> > in
> > > > > > >> general,
> > > > > > >> > > it's
> > > > > > >> > > > > very
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> confusing to have a data model(schemas) and
> > > > > node/cluster
> > > > > > >> > > > > > configuration
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> one place.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> So there will be SchemaBuilder and SQL to
> define
> > > > > > schemas,
> > > > > > >> but
> > > > > > >> > > > > Andrey
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> also
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> mentioned annotations.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> I personally against configuration via
> > > annotations,
> > > > > > while
> > > > > > >> > it's
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> convenient
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> for development, it difficult to manage
> because
> > > > > > different
> > > > > > >> > > classes
> > > > > > >> > > > > can
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> deployed on different clients/servers nodes
> and
> > it
> > > > can
> > > > > > >> lead
> > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> unpredictable results.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 3. IEP doesn't mention field type changes,
> only
> > > > > drop/add
> > > > > > >> > > fields.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > Field
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> type
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> changes are extremely painful right now(if
> even
> > > > > > >> possible), so
> > > > > > >> > > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > > would
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> nice if some scenarios would be supported(like
> > > > > > >> int8->int16,
> > > > > > >> > or
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> int8->String).
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 4. got it, I thought IEP will have more
> details
> > > > about
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> implementation.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> I've seen Andrey even sent benchmark results
> > for a
> > > > new
> > > > > > >> > > > > serialization,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> ping him about this.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 5. Thanks for the clarification. I had a wrong
> > > > > > >> understanding
> > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > >> > > > > > strick
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> mode.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> вт, 29 дек. 2020 г. в 19:32, Valentin
> > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Hi Mike,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Thanks for providing your feedback. Please
> see
> > > my
> > > > > > >> comments
> > > > > > >> > > > below.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > I would also encourage you to go through the
> > > > IEP-54
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > >> -
> > > > > > >> > it
> > > > > > >> > > > has
> > > > > > >> > > > > a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> lot
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> of
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > detail on the topic.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > [1]
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > -Val
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:22 PM Michael
> > > > Cherkasov <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > michael.cherkasov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Hi all,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > I reviewed the mail thread and proposal
> page
> > > > and I
> > > > > > >> still
> > > > > > >> > > > don't
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> fully
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > understand what is going to be changed, I
> > > would
> > > > > > really
> > > > > > >> > > > > appreciate
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> it
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> if
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > will answer a few questions:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 1. Are you going to leave only one schema
> > per
> > > > > cache?
> > > > > > >> if
> > > > > > >> > so,
> > > > > > >> > > > > will
> > > > > > >> > > > > > be
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> there
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > an option to have a table with arbitrary
> > > > > > objects(pure
> > > > > > >> KV
> > > > > > >> > > > case)?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > My opinion is that KV case should be
> natively
> > > > > > >> supported. I
> > > > > > >> > > > think
> > > > > > >> > > > > > this
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> still
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > needs to be thought over, my current view on
> > > this
> > > > is
> > > > > > >> that
> > > > > > >> > we
> > > > > > >> > > > > should
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> have
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > separate APIs for KV and more generic
> > storages.
> > > KV
> > > > > > >> storage
> > > > > > >> > > can
> > > > > > >> > > > be
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > implemented as a "table" with two BLOB
> fields
> > > > where
> > > > > we
> > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > >> > > > store
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > serialized key-value pairs. That would imply
> > > > > > >> > deserialization
> > > > > > >> > > on
> > > > > > >> > > > > > read,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> but I
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > believe this is OK for KV use cases. I'm
> happy
> > > to
> > > > > hear
> > > > > > >> > other
> > > > > > >> > > > > ideas
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> though
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > :)
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0
> have
> > to
> > > > > > define
> > > > > > >> > > schema?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > SchemaBuilder
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > and SQL only? Is there an option to put
> the
> > > > schema
> > > > > > >> > > definition
> > > > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > configuration?(I really don't like this, I
> > > would
> > > > > > >> prefer
> > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > >> > > > have
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > separate scripts to create schemas)
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > There will be no such thing as a static
> > > > > configuration
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > first
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> place.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Tables and schemas are created in runtime.
> > Even
> > > if
> > > > > > there
> > > > > > >> > is a
> > > > > > >> > > > > file
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> provided
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > on node startup, this file is only applied
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > scope
> > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 'start'
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > operation. All configurations will be stored
> > in
> > > a
> > > > > meta
> > > > > > >> > > storage
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> available to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > all nodes, as opposed to individual files.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 3. Is there a way to change field type? if
> > > yes,
> > > > > can
> > > > > > >> it be
> > > > > > >> > > > done
> > > > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > runtime?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Absolutely! IEP-54 has a whole section about
> > > > schema
> > > > > > >> > > evolution.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going to
> > be
> > > > > > >> re-worked
> > > > > > >> > > too,
> > > > > > >> > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> there
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> any
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > IEP for this?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > BinaryMarshaller as a tool for arbitrary
> > object
> > > > > > >> > serialization
> > > > > > >> > > > > will
> > > > > > >> > > > > > be
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> gone,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > but we will reuse a lot of its concept to
> > > > implement
> > > > > an
> > > > > > >> > > internal
> > > > > > >> > > > > > tuple
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > serialization mechanism. IEP-54 has the
> > > > description
> > > > > of
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> > > > > proposed
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> data
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > format.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 5. I don't like automatic schema
> evaluation
> > > > when a
> > > > > > new
> > > > > > >> > > field
> > > > > > >> > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> added
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > automatically on record put, so is there a
> > way
> > > > to
> > > > > > >> > prohibit
> > > > > > >> > > > this
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> behavior?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >  I think all schema changes should be done
> > > only
> > > > > > >> > explicitly
> > > > > > >> > > > > except
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> initial
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > schema creation.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > The way I see it is that we should have two
> > > modes:
> > > > > > >> > > schema-first
> > > > > > >> > > > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > schema-last. Schema-first means exactly what
> > > > you've
> > > > > > >> > > described -
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> schemas
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> are
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > defined and updated explicitly by the user.
> In
> > > the
> > > > > > >> > > schema-last
> > > > > > >> > > > > > mode,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > the user does not deal with schemas, as they
> > are
> > > > > > >> inferred
> > > > > > >> > > from
> > > > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> data
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > inserted into tables. We should definitely
> not
> > > mix
> > > > > > these
> > > > > > >> > > modes
> > > > > > >> > > > -
> > > > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> has
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > be one or another. And it probably makes
> sense
> > > to
> > > > > > >> discuss
> > > > > > >> > > which
> > > > > > >> > > > > > mode
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> should
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > be the default one.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Thanks,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Mike.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey
> > Mashenkov
> > > <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Hi, Igniters.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > We all know that the current QueryEntity
> > API
> > > > is
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > >> > > > > convenient
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > needs
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > be reworked.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema
> > > > > > >> configuration
> > > > > > >> > > > public
> > > > > > >> > > > > > API
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Ignite 3.0.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > New schema configuration uses Builder
> > > pattern,
> > > > > > which
> > > > > > >> > > looks
> > > > > > >> > > > > more
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > comfortable
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > to use.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > In the PR you will find a 'schema'
> package
> > > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> API
> > > > > > >> > > > > itself,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > draft
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > implementation in 'internal'
> sub-package,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and a test that demonstrates how the API
> > > could
> > > > > be
> > > > > > >> used.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Please note:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class
> > with
> > > > > static
> > > > > > >> > > factory
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> methods.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * The implementation is decoupled and
> can
> > be
> > > > > > easily
> > > > > > >> > > > extracted
> > > > > > >> > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > separate
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > module if we decide to do so.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time)
> are
> > > > > missed,
> > > > > > >> they
> > > > > > >> > > will
> > > > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> added
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > lately
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > in separate tickes.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Index configuration extends marker
> > > interface
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > >> > makes
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> possible
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > implement indexes of new types in
> plugins.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Hopfully, we could add a persistent
> > > > geo-indices
> > > > > > >> support
> > > > > > >> > > in
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> future.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Supposedly, current table schema can
> be
> > > > > changed
> > > > > > >> via
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> builder-like
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > structure as it is done if JOOQ project.
> > See
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 'TableModificationBuilder'
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > details.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have
> > > > > > 'toBuilder()'
> > > > > > >> > > > > converter
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> that
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > purpose as it is a Schema Manager
> > > > responsibility
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > create
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> mutator
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > objects
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > from the current schema,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > but implementing the Schema manager is
> out
> > > of
> > > > > > scope
> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > >> > > > will
> > > > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > designed
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > within the next task.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Interfaces implementations are out of
> > > > scope. I
> > > > > > did
> > > > > > >> > not
> > > > > > >> > > > > intend
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > merge
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > them right now, but for
> test/demostration
> > > > > > purposes.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > It is NOT the final version and some may
> > be
> > > > > > changed
> > > > > > >> > > before
> > > > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> first
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > release of course.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > For now, we have to agree if we can
> > proceed
> > > > with
> > > > > > >> this
> > > > > > >> > > > > approach
> > > > > > >> > > > > > or
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> some
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > issues should be resolved at first.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Any thoughts or objections?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Are interfaces good enough to be merged
> > > within
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > current
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> ticket?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> jury.gerzhedowich@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > A little bit my thoughts about
> unsigned
> > > > types:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 2. It requires adding new types to the
> > > > > internal
> > > > > > >> > > > > > representation,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > protocol,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > e.t.c.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 3. internal representation should be
> the
> > > > same
> > > > > as
> > > > > > >> we
> > > > > > >> > > keep
> > > > > > >> > > > > sign
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> types.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > So
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > will not requires more memory
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 4. User should be aware of specifics
> > such
> > > > > types
> > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > >> > > > > platforms
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> which
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > not
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > support unsigned types. For example, a
> > > user
> > > > > > could
> > > > > > >> > > derive
> > > > > > >> > > > -6
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> value
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> in
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits
> > > > > > perspective
> > > > > > >> > will
> > > > > > >> > > > be
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> right). I
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > think
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > We shouldn't use more wide type for
> such
> > > > > cases,
> > > > > > >> > > > especially
> > > > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> will be
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > bad
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for unsigned long when we require
> > returns
> > > > > > >> BigInteger
> > > > > > >> > > > type.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 5. Possible it requires some
> > > suffix/preffix
> > > > > for
> > > > > > >> new
> > > > > > >> > > types
> > > > > > >> > > > > > like
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > '250u' -
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value
> > > type.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 6. It requires a little bit more
> > expensive
> > > > > > >> comparison
> > > > > > >> > > > logic
> > > > > > >> > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > indexes
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 7. It requires new comparison logic
> for
> > > > > > >> expressions.
> > > > > > >> > I
> > > > > > >> > > > > think
> > > > > > >> > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> not
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > possible for the current H2 engine and
> > > > > probably
> > > > > > >> > > possible
> > > > > > >> > > > > for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> new
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Calcite engine. Need clarification
> from
> > > > > anybody
> > > > > > >> who
> > > > > > >> > > > > involved
> > > > > > >> > > > > > in
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> this
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > part
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey
> > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Actually, we can support comparisons
> > in
> > > > 3.0:
> > > > > > >> once
> > > > > > >> > we
> > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> actual
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > type
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > information, we can make proper
> > runtime
> > > > > > >> adjustments
> > > > > > >> > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> conversions
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > treat those values as unsigned - it
> > will
> > > > be
> > > > > > >> just a
> > > > > > >> > > bit
> > > > > > >> > > > > more
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > expensive.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel
> > > > > Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong
> > results
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality
> > > > comparisons
> > > > > > >> and so
> > > > > > >> > > on
> > > > > > >> > > > > are
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> broken
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I
> > > > > mentioned
> > > > > > >> this
> > > > > > >> > > > > > somewhere
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > above.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can
> > document
> > > > that
> > > > > > >> SQL is
> > > > > > >> > > not
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> supported
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > on
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > those
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > types,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > end of story.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM
> > Alexey
> > > > > > >> Goncharuk
> > > > > > >> > <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Folks, I think this is a
> > reasonable
> > > > > > >> request. I
> > > > > > >> > > > > thought
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> about
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > this
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > when
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > I
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but
> > hesitated
> > > to
> > > > > add
> > > > > > >> > these
> > > > > > >> > > > > types
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> right
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > away.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite
> > > since
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > beginning
> > > > > > >> > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> .NET
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > C++
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > :)
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I have some doubts that it
> > actually
> > > > > works
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > >> > > > > expected,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> needs
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > some
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > checking (will be glad if my
> > > concerns
> > > > > are
> > > > > > >> > false):
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - It's true that equality
> check
> > > > works
> > > > > > >> > > properly,
> > > > > > >> > > > > but
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> SQL
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > range
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    queries it will break unless
> > some
> > > > > > special
> > > > > > >> > care
> > > > > > >> > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> taken
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> on
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > side:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java
> > > (byte)255
> > > > > will
> > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > >> > > > > converted
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> -1,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > which
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    break the comparison. Since
> we
> > > > don't
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > >> > > > unsigned
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> types
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > now,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > I
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > doubt
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    works.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - There is an obvious
> > > > cross-platform
> > > > > > data
> > > > > > >> > loss
> > > > > > >> > > > > when
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > "intuitive"
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > type
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8
> > > > > > >> corresponds to
> > > > > > >> > > > byte
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> type in
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > .NET,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > but
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user
> will
> > > have
> > > > > to
> > > > > > >> use
> > > > > > >> > > short
> > > > > > >> > > > > > type
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Java,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    will also need to take care
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > range
> > > > > > >> > check
> > > > > > >> > > > > > during
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > serialization).
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    think we can even allow to
> try
> > to
> > > > > > >> > deserialize
> > > > > > >> > > a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > value
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> into
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > arbitrary
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > type,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    but throw an exception if the
> > > range
> > > > > is
> > > > > > >> out
> > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > >> > > > > > bounds.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's
> > > > comments.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the
> > IEP
> > > > > once
> > > > > > >> all
> > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > details
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> are
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > settled
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > here?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19,
> > Andrey
> > > > > > >> Mashenkov
> > > > > > >> > <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond
> > 2^63
> > > > > can't
> > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > >> > > > treated
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> correctly
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > now
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong
> > > > results)
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I think we could make "true"
> > > support
> > > > > for
> > > > > > >> > > unsigned
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> types,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> but
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > they
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able
> > to
> > > > map
> > > > > > >> uint64
> > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > Java
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> long
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > primitive,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > BigInteger only.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > As for indices, we could read
> > > uint64
> > > > > to
> > > > > > >> Java
> > > > > > >> > > > long,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > but
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> treat
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > negative
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > values in a different way to
> > > > preserve
> > > > > > >> correct
> > > > > > >> > > > > > ordering.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > These limitations will affect
> > only
> > > > > mixed
> > > > > > >> > > > > environments
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> when
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > .Net
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > used to access the data.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Will this solution address
> your
> > > > > issues?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45
> PM
> > > > Pavel
> > > > > > >> > Tupitsyn
> > > > > > >> > > <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is how it works in
> Ignite
> > > > since
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > beginning
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> with
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > .NET
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > C++
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > :)
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > You can use unsigned
> > primitives
> > > as
> > > > > > cache
> > > > > > >> > keys
> > > > > > >> > > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> values,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > as
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > fields
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > properties,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in
> > > WHERE
> > > > > x=y
> > > > > > >> > > clauses)
> > > > > > >> > > > -
> > > > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> works
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > transparently
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the users.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and
> > > treats
> > > > > > those
> > > > > > >> > > values
> > > > > > >> > > > > as
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > corresponding
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > signed
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > However, this abstraction
> > leaks
> > > in
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > >> > cases
> > > > > > >> > > > > only
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> because
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > there
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > are
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > no
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a
> > very
> > > > > > simple
> > > > > > >> > > change
> > > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > protocol
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > -
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > add
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the
> same
> > > way
> > > > as
> > > > > > >> signed
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> counterparts.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00
> > PM
> > > > > Andrey
> > > > > > >> > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > >> > > > > <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in
> > Java
> > > > > > (bitwise
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> representation
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > same)
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET
> > class
> > > > > with a
> > > > > > >> > uByte
> > > > > > >> > > > > field
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> map
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > 'uint8'
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > column.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Then you set the field
> value
> > > to
> > > > > > "250"
> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > >> > > put
> > > > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> object
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > into a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > table,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits
> > to
> > > a
> > > > > > single
> > > > > > >> > byte
> > > > > > >> > > > > > 'int8'
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > column.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't
> > > > deserialize
> > > > > it
> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > >> > > > > directly
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Java
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > object
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > field
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should
> > map
> > > > > uint8
> > > > > > >> type
> > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > Java
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 'short'
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > type
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > because the one expected
> to
> > > see
> > > > > > "250"
> > > > > > >> as
> > > > > > >> > a
> > > > > > >> > > > > value
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> which
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > doesn't
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > fit
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > signed type.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will
> need
> > a
> > > > > > >> BigInteger
> > > > > > >> > > > field
> > > > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Java.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't
> treat
> > > > > column
> > > > > > >> value
> > > > > > >> > > as
> > > > > > >> > > > > Java
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 'byte'
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > as
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > is,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > after reading you will
> get a
> > > > > > negative
> > > > > > >> > > value,
> > > > > > >> > > > so
> > > > > > >> > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> should
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > be
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > cast
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > short
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to
> > > > BigInteger
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> > > > uint64)
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type
> > will
> > > > > > require
> > > > > > >> a
> > > > > > >> > > > > different
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > comparator.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look
> > simpler.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
> 4:23
> > > PM
> > > > > > Pavel
> > > > > > >> > > > Tupitsyn
> > > > > > >> > > > > <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think range
> > > narrowing
> > > > > is a
> > > > > > >> good
> > > > > > >> > > > idea.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > > >> simple
> > > > > > >> > > > > > approach
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > described?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
> > 4:01
> > > > PM
> > > > > > >> Andrey
> > > > > > >> > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with
> > > narrowing
> > > > > > range
> > > > > > >> > for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> types
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > then
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > we
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > could
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > add a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > constraint for
> unsigned
> > > > types
> > > > > on
> > > > > > >> > schema
> > > > > > >> > > > > level
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> (like
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > nullability
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > flag)
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as
> signed
> > > > types
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > >> > > > storage.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a
> > > separate
> > > > > > >> storage
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> type-system
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > binary
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however
> > most
> > > of
> > > > > > type
> > > > > > >> > will
> > > > > > >> > > > > match
> > > > > > >> > > > > > 1
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 1
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > with
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > storage
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (native)
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will
> > > either
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > >> a
> > > > > > >> > > > > separate
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> type
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> id
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > or
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > treat
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > serialized
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a
> schema
> > > > > (signed
> > > > > > >> or
> > > > > > >> > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> flag).
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can
> > > ever
> > > > > > >> foresee
> > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> consequences
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > of
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > using
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to
> > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > >> types
> > > > > > >> > > > > > perfectly
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> works
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > with
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > some
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > database,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into
> > Ignite
> > > > > > >> successor
> > > > > > >> > > > > > confession
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> with
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > our
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > "native"
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types
> support.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds
> that
> > > he
> > > > > can
> > > > > > >> use
> > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > power
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Ignite
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Compute
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new
> app.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will
> > > > either
> > > > > > >> fail to
> > > > > > >> > > use
> > > > > > >> > > > > his
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > unsigned
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > data
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > due
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > face performance
> issues
> > > due
> > > > to
> > > > > > >> > natural
> > > > > > >> > > > Java
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> type
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > system
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > limitations
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to
> > > > > BigInteger.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that
> natively
> > > > > > supported
> > > > > > >> > types
> > > > > > >> > > > > with
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> possible
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > value
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > ranges
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be
> > > known.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question
> is
> > > > what
> > > > > > >> > trade-off
> > > > > > >> > > > we
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> found
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > acceptable:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > narrowing
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or
> > use
> > > > > types
> > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > >> > > wider
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> range on
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > systems
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > like
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Java.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020
> at
> > > 3:25
> > > > > PM
> > > > > > >> Igor
> > > > > > >> > > > > Sapego <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it
> > is
> > > > not
> > > > > so
> > > > > > >> hard
> > > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> implement
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > comparison
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so
> > it
> > > > does
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > >> > seem
> > > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > be a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> big
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > issue
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > from
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > my
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of
> > > > unsigned
> > > > > > >> types
> > > > > > >> > > from
> > > > > > >> > > > > > Java
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> - I
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > think,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > if
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is
> > going
> > > > to
> > > > > > >> > interact
> > > > > > >> > > > with
> > > > > > >> > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> from
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > he
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > knows
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > he
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for
> > use
> > > > from
> > > > > > >> > > platforms
> > > > > > >> > > > > > where
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> they
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > have
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > native
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > widely
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or
> > > .NET,
> > > > > > where
> > > > > > >> > > users
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> currently
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > have
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > make a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > manual
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > casting
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop
> > using
> > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > >> > > types
> > > > > > >> > > > > when
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> they
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > use
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Ignite.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020
> > at
> > > > 3:06
> > > > > > PM
> > > > > > >> > Pavel
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much
> > > > > simpler:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol
> > support
> > > > for
> > > > > > >> those
> > > > > > >> > > > types
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > (basically,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > just
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > add
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as
> > long
> > > in
> > > > > > Java
> > > > > > >> > > > (bitwise
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > representation
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > same)
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not
> > have
> > > > > > >> unsigned
> > > > > > >> > > > > integers,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> so
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> we
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > can
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > simply
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > say
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value
> > > relative
> > > > > > >> > comparison
> > > > > > >> > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > not
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > supported
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > in
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (equality
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24,
> 2020
> > > at
> > > > > 2:40
> > > > > > >> PM
> > > > > > >> > > > Andrey
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Mashenkov
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel
> and
> > > > Igor.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your
> ideas
> > to
> > > > > have
> > > > > > >> i8 or
> > > > > > >> > > > int8
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> instead of
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Integer.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming
> > > doesn't
> > > > > > >> address
> > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > issue.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal
> > > types
> > > > > > >> should
> > > > > > >> > be
> > > > > > >> > > > > > portable
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > across
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > different
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > systems
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned
> > > type
> > > > > > >> support.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue
> > here
> > > is
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > >> > > > unsigned
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> types
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > cover
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > different
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > ranges.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we
> > want
> > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > introduce a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> uLong.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look
> > > like a
> > > > > big
> > > > > > >> deal
> > > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > add
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> uLong
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > type
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > support
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > storage
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a
> 8
> > > > bytes
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> > then
> > > > > > >> > > > use
> > > > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> e.g.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > .Net
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > only.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could
> > > > support
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > >> > > e.g.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > Java?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in
> mind
> > > > Long
> > > > > > >> range
> > > > > > >> > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > about
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> (2^-63
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > ..
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 2^63)
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > range
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first
> > option
> > > is
> > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > restrict
> > > > > > >> > > > > > range
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> (0
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > ..
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > 2^63).
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no
> > > > conversion,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > >> > > > doesn't
> > > > > > >> > > > > > look
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> like
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 'real'
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things
> go
> > > > worse
> > > > > > >> when
> > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > user
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> use
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > uByte,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > as
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > limitation
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte
> totally
> > > > > > unusable.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second
> one
> > is
> > > > to
> > > > > > map
> > > > > > >> > > > unsigned
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> types
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > type
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > of
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > wider
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for
> > > > > negative
> > > > > > >> > values.
> > > > > > >> > > > > E.g.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> uLong to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > BigInteger.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use
> > > > > primitive
> > > > > > >> Java
> > > > > > >> > > > type
> > > > > > >> > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Long
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > here.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > However,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > still
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to
> store
> > > > uLong
> > > > > > in 8
> > > > > > >> > > bytes,
> > > > > > >> > > > > but
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> have a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > special
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > comparator
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types
> to
> > > > avoid
> > > > > > >> > unwanted
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > deserialization.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24,
> > 2020
> > > > at
> > > > > > >> 2:04 PM
> > > > > > >> > > > Pavel
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Tupitsyn
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's
> get
> > > rid
> > > > > of
> > > > > > >> > "long,
> > > > > > >> > > > > short,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> byte"
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > in
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use
> Rust
> > > > style,
> > > > > > >> which
> > > > > > >> > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > concise
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > unambiguous:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16,
> > u16,
> > > > etc
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov
> 24,
> > > 2020
> > > > > at
> > > > > > >> 1:58
> > > > > > >> > PM
> > > > > > >> > > > > Igor
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Sapego <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally
> > > support
> > > > > > that.
> > > > > > >> > Also,
> > > > > > >> > > > if
> > > > > > >> > > > > we
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> are
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > aiming
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger
> > > > > > >> > > platform-independance,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our
> schemas
> > > we
> > > > > may
> > > > > > >> want
> > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > support
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > bit-notation
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (int32,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can
> > mean
> > > a
> > > > > > >> different
> > > > > > >> > > > type
> > > > > > >> > > > > on
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > different
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > platforms
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them
> (happens
> > > > often
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > >> > > using
> > > > > > >> > > > > ODBC
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > example).
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best
> Regards,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov
> > 24,
> > > > 2020
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > >> > 1:34
> > > > > > >> > > PM
> > > > > > >> > > > > > Pavel
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Tupitsyn
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we
> > > > should
> > > > > > >> support
> > > > > > >> > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> data
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > types:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte,
> > uShort,
> > > > > uInt,
> > > > > > >> > uLong
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does
> > not
> > > > have
> > > > > > >> them,
> > > > > > >> > > but
> > > > > > >> > > > > many
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> other
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > languages
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > do,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with
> the
> > > > > growing
> > > > > > >> > number
> > > > > > >> > > > of
> > > > > > >> > > > > > thin
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > clients
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > this
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> example,
> > > in
> > > > > > >> current
> > > > > > >> > > > > > Ignite.NET
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > implementation
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed
> > > > > > internally,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this
> is
> > a
> > > > huge
> > > > > > >> pain
> > > > > > >> > > when
> > > > > > >> > > > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> comes
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > metadata,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > binary
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is
> easy
> > to
> > > > > > >> > deserialize
> > > > > > >> > > > int
> > > > > > >> > > > > as
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> uint
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > when
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > you
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > class,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > objections?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue,
> Nov
> > > 24,
> > > > > 2020
> > > > > > >> at
> > > > > > >> > > 12:28
> > > > > > >> > > > > PM
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Andrey
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Mashenkov <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good
> > point.
> > > > Both
> > > > > > >> > > > serializers
> > > > > > >> > > > > > use
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > reflection
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However,
> > we
> > > > will
> > > > > > >> allow
> > > > > > >> > > > users
> > > > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > configure
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > static
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > along
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > mode,
> > > > we
> > > > > > >> still
> > > > > > >> > > need
> > > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> validate
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > user
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > classes
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > client
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> latest
> > > > > schema
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > >> > > > grid
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > reflection
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can
> > > find a
> > > > > few
> > > > > > >> > > articles
> > > > > > >> > > > > on
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > internet
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > on
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > how
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll
> > create
> > > a
> > > > > task
> > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > supporting
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > GraalVM,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > maybe
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> > > with
> > > > > > >> GraalVM
> > > > > > >> > > will
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> suggest a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > solution
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > or
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do
> > it a
> > > > bit
> > > > > > >> later.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no
> > > > workaround
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > found,
> > > > > > >> > > > we
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> could
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > allow
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > users
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > own
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > serializer,
> > > > but
> > > > > I
> > > > > > >> don't
> > > > > > >> > > > think
> > > > > > >> > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > good
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > idea
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > expose
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes
> to
> > > the
> > > > > > >> public.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue,
> > Nov
> > > > 24,
> > > > > > >> 2020 at
> > > > > > >> > > > 2:55
> > > > > > >> > > > > AM
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Denis
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Magda <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Andrey,
> > > > thanks
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > update,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does
> any
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > serializers
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> take
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> into
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > consideration
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > native-image-generation
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> feature of
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > GraalVM?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> the
> > > > > current
> > > > > > >> > binary
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> marshaller,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > we
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > can't
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > even
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > generate
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> the
> > > code
> > > > > > using
> > > > > > >> > our
> > > > > > >> > > > thin
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> client
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > APIs.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On
> Mon,
> > > Nov
> > > > > 23,
> > > > > > >> 2020
> > > > > > >> > at
> > > > > > >> > > > > 4:39
> > > > > > >> > > > > > AM
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Andrey
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi
> > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd
> > like
> > > > to
> > > > > > >> > continue
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> discussion
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> of
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > IEP-54
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope
> > > > > everyone
> > > > > > >> who
> > > > > > >> > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> interested
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > had a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > chance
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > proposal
> > > > > [1].
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > Please,
> > > do
> > > > > not
> > > > > > >> > > hesitate
> > > > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> ask
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > questions
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > share
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > prepared
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> > > > prototype
> > > > > > >> > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > serializer
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > [2]
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > data
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> described
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> the
> > > > > > proposal.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > prototy,
> > > > > I
> > > > > > >> > > compared
> > > > > > >> > > > 2
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> approaches
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > (de)serialize
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > java
> > > > > > >> > > > > reflection/unsafe
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> API
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > similar
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > the
> > > > > second
> > > > > > >> one
> > > > > > >> > > > > > generates
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > serializer
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Janino
> > > > > library
> > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> compilation.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Second
> > > one
> > > > > > shows
> > > > > > >> > > better
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> results
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> in
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > benchmarks.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > think
> > > we
> > > > > can
> > > > > > >> go
> > > > > > >> > > with
> > > > > > >> > > > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > > as
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > default
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > serializer
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > reflection-based
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > implementation
> > > > > > >> as a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > fallback
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> if
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > someone
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> WDYT?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> There
> > > are
> > > > a
> > > > > > >> number
> > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > >> > > > > tasks
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> under
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > umbrella
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ticket
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > assignee.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW,
> > I'm
> > > > > going
> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > >> > > > create
> > > > > > >> > > > > > more
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > tickets
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > manager
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > implementation,
> > > > > > >> but
> > > > > > >> > > > would
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> like
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > clarify
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > details.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > thought
> > > > > > >> > > schemaManager
> > > > > > >> > > > > on
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> each
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > node
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > should
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > held:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1.
> > > Local
> > > > > > >> mapping
> > > > > > >> > of
> > > > > > >> > > > > > "schema
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > version"
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > <-->
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > validated
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > classes
> > > > > pair.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2.
> > > > > > >> Cluster-wide
> > > > > > >> > > > schema
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> changes
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > history.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On
> the
> > > > > client
> > > > > > >> side.
> > > > > > >> > > > > Before
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> any
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > key-value
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > operation
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > validate a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> schema
> > > > for a
> > > > > > >> given
> > > > > > >> > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> pair.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If
> > there
> > > > is
> > > > > no
> > > > > > >> > > > > > local-mapping
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> exists
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > given
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > cluster
> > > > wide
> > > > > > >> schema
> > > > > > >> > > > has a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> more
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > recent
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > version
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> should
> > > be
> > > > > > >> validated
> > > > > > >> > > > > against
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > latest
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > version
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> updated/actualized.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If
> an
> > > > object
> > > > > > >> > doesn't
> > > > > > >> > > > fit
> > > > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > latest
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > schema
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > depends
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> mode:
> > > > either
> > > > > > >> fail
> > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> operation
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > ('strict'
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > mode)
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > created
> > > > and
> > > > > a
> > > > > > >> new
> > > > > > >> > > > schema
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> version
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > should
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > be
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > propagated
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On
> the
> > > > > server
> > > > > > >> side
> > > > > > >> > we
> > > > > > >> > > > > > usually
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> have
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > no
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > classes
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > tuples.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As
> > > schema
> > > > > > change
> > > > > > >> > > > history
> > > > > > >> > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > available
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > tuple
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> is
> > > > > possible
> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > >> > > > upgrade
> > > > > > >> > > > > > any
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > received
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > tuple
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > last
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > desialization.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus
> > we
> > > > > could
> > > > > > >> allow
> > > > > > >> > > > nodes
> > > > > > >> > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> send
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > key-value
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > pairs
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they
> > > > didn't
> > > > > > >> > receive a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > schema
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> update
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > yet)
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > reverting
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made
> > by
> > > a
> > > > > node
> > > > > > >> with
> > > > > > >> > > > newer
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> classes.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Alex,
> > > Val,
> > > > > > Ivan
> > > > > > >> did
> > > > > > >> > > you
> > > > > > >> > > > > > mean
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > same?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On
> > Thu,
> > > > Sep
> > > > > > 17,
> > > > > > >> > 2020
> > > > > > >> > > at
> > > > > > >> > > > > > 9:21
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> AM
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Ivan
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > Folks,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > Please
> > > > do
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > >> > > ignore
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> history.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> We
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > had
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > ideas.
> > > > We
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > >> > > resume
> > > > > > >> > > > > it.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> [1]
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > 2020-09-10
> > > > > > >> 0:08
> > > > > > >> > > > > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Denis
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Magda
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > Val,
> > > > > makes
> > > > > > >> > sense,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > thanks
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > explaining.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > Agree
> > > > > that
> > > > > > >> we
> > > > > > >> > > need
> > > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> have a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > separate
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> "table"
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > "cache"
> > > > > > >> terms
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> substitution.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > I'll
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > appreciate
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > sharing
> > > > > > >> > pointers
> > > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > any
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > relevant
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > IEPs
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > reasoning
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > suggested
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > change.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> -
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > Denis
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> On
> > > > Tue,
> > > > > > Sep
> > > > > > >> 8,
> > > > > > >> > > 2020
> > > > > > >> > > > > at
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 6:01
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> PM
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > Hi
> > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> I
> > > > guess
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > wording
> > > > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> IEP
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > little
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > bit
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > that
> > > > > you
> > > > > > >> > should
> > > > > > >> > > > not
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> create
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > nested
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > POJOs,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> into a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > single
> > > > > > POJO
> > > > > > >> > that
> > > > > > >> > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> mapped
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > nested
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > POJOs
> > > > > are
> > > > > > >> not
> > > > > > >> > > > > > supported.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > Alex,
> > > > > is
> > > > > > >> this
> > > > > > >> > > > > correct?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Please
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > let
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > me
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > know
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> something.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > As
> > > > for
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > "cache"
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> term, I
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > agree
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > that
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > what
> > > > we
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > >> > > > replace
> > > > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> with.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > "Table"
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > tightly
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > SQL
> > > > is
> > > > > > >> > optional
> > > > > > >> > > in
> > > > > > >> > > > > our
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> case.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Do
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > you
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > want
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > create a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > discussion
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > about
> > > > > > this?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > -Val
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > On
> > > > Tue,
> > > > > > >> Sep 8,
> > > > > > >> > > > 2020
> > > > > > >> > > > > at
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 4:37 PM
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Denis
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > Val,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > I've
> > > > > > >> checked
> > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > IEP
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> again
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > have a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > few
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > questions.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > > > > Arbitrary
> > > > > > >> > > nested
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> objects
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > collections
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > > > values.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > > > Nested
> > > > > > >> > POJOs
> > > > > > >> > > > > should
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> either
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > be
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > inlined
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> BLOBs
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > > Could
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > >> > > > provide a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > DDL
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> code
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > snippet
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > showing
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> POJOs
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > > > supposed
> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > >> > > work?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > > Also,
> > > > > we
> > > > > > >> keep
> > > > > > >> > > > using
> > > > > > >> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> terms
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > "cache"
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > the
> > > > > > right
> > > > > > >> > time
> > > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> discuss
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> an
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > alternate
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > too?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > > > > >> Personally,
> > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > should
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > stay
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > > > > >> considering
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > that
> > > > > SQL
> > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > >> > one
> > > > > > >> > > > of
> > > > > > >> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > primary
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > APIs
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > in
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > supported
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > > > > >> > out-of-the-box.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > -
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > > Denis
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > On
> > > > > Mon,
> > > > > > >> Sep
> > > > > > >> > 7,
> > > > > > >> > > > 2020
> > > > > > >> > > > > > at
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 12:26
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > PM
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > > > Ivan,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > I
> > > > > see
> > > > > > >> your
> > > > > > >> > > > > point. I
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> agree
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > that
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > with
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > automatic
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> into
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > > > > >> schema-last
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> territory.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > > > > >> Actually,
> > > > > > >> > if
> > > > > > >> > > we
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> support
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > automatic
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > evolution,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> support
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > > > > >> creating a
> > > > > > >> > > > cache
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> without
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > schema
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > inferring
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > > > > insert.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > In
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > > > other
> > > > > > >> > words,
> > > > > > >> > > we
> > > > > > >> > > > > can
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> have
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > both
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > "schema-last"
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> modes.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > > > > Alexey,
> > > > > > >> > what
> > > > > > >> > > do
> > > > > > >> > > > > you
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> think?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > > -Val
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > On
> > > > > > Mon,
> > > > > > >> Sep
> > > > > > >> > > 7,
> > > > > > >> > > > > 2020
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> at
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 5:59
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > AM
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Alexey
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Ivan,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Thank
> > > > > > >> > you,
> > > > > > >> > > I
> > > > > > >> > > > > got
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> your
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > concern
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > now.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > As
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > terminology,
> > > > > > >> > > > I
> > > > > > >> > > > > am
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > absolutely
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > fine
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > whatever
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > fits
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > approach
> > > > > > >> > > > > > best.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Dynamic
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > or
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > evolving
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > make
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > corresponding
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> changes
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > IEP
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > once
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > settle
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > пн,
> > > > > > 7
> > > > > > >> > сент.
> > > > > > >> > > > > 2020
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> г. в
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 11:33,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Ivan
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi
> > > > > > >> Val,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> Thank
> > > > > > >> > you
> > > > > > >> > > > for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> your
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > answer!
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > My
> > > > > > >> > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > little
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > bit
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > different.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > evolution
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > definitely
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> should be
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > possible.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > But
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > see
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> "how
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> schema
> > > > > > >> > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> updated".
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> I
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > treat a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > common
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > schema-first.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > > Schema
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> > data
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> manipulation
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > operations
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > clearly
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > > > enables
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > interesting
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > capabilities,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > preventing
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > changes
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > by
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > mistaken
> > > > > > >> > > > data
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > operations,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > restricting
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> change
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> schema.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > Schema-first
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> means
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > that
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > schema
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > exists
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > > stored
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > data
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > compliant
> > > > > > >> > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> it -
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > that's
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > A
> > > > > > >> > > > schema-last
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> approach
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > mentioned
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> schema
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> exists,
> > > > > > >> > > but
> > > > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > inferred
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > from
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > data.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > proposing
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> approach?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > And
> > > > > > >> I
> > > > > > >> > > would
> > > > > > >> > > > > > like
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > say,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > that
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > my
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> about
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > terminology.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > And
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > suppose
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > if
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > confuses
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > confused
> > > > > > >> > > as
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> well. My
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > feeling
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > closer
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > may
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > be
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > evolving
> > > > > > >> > > > > > schema".
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > 2020-09-07
> > > > > > >> > > > > 0:47
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > >> > > Ivan,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > >> > don't
> > > > > > >> > > > see
> > > > > > >> > > > > > an
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> issue
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > with
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > that.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> schema
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > > exists
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > in
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > advance
> > > > > > >> > > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > all
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > stored
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > data
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > compliant
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > > > exactly
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > proposed.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> There
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > are
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > no
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > restrictions
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > >> schema.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> -Val
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On
> > > > > > >> > Sat,
> > > > > > >> > > > Sep
> > > > > > >> > > > > > 5,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 2020
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > at
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > 9:52
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > PM
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ivan
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > Alexey,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> I
> > > > > > >> > am a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > little
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> bit
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > confused
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > understanding
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > > > > conforms
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> to a
> > > > > > >> > > > > survey
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> (see
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > part
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > X
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Semi
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Structured
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > really
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > > > treat
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> a
> > > > > > >> > > > "dynamic
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> schema"
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > approach
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > as a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > kind
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > "schema-first"?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > 2020-09-02
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 1:53
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > However,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> could
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > please
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > between
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > ORM?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > Is
> > > > > > >> > > > > there
> > > > > > >> > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> use
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > case
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Ignite
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > (I
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > >> haven't
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > seen
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > one
> > > > > > >> > > > so
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> far)?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> If
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > so,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > what
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > side
> > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > support
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > this?
> > > > > > >> > > > > In
> > > > > > >> > > > > > my
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > > > > already
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > have.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > Am
> > > > > > >> > > I
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> missing
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > something?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Good
> > > > > > >> > > > > > point,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> yes,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > if
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > all
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > ORM
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > APIs
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > internally,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> then
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > they
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > can
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > easily
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > translate
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> object
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > into
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > an
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> INSERT/UPDATE
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > statement
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > that
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > lists
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > fields.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > > > > Luckily,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > our
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > Spring
> > > > > > >> > > > > > Data
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > integration
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > based
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > APIs
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > needs
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > >> > > be
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> improved
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > once
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > supported.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > That
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > solve
> > > > > > >> > > > a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > ton
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > usability
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > I
> > > > > > >> > > > would
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> revise
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> dev
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > phase.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > Can't
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> say
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > if
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > it's
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > used
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > getting
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > traction
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > sure.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > @Michael
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Pollind,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > I'll
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > loop
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > long
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > started
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > > > > working
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > on
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> support
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Micornaut
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > came
> > > > > > >> > > > > > across
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> some
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > challenges.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Just
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > watch
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > discussion.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > That's
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > > what
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > coming
> > > > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Ignite
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 3.0.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > -
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > Denis
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > On
> > > > > > >> > > > Mon,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > Aug
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> 31,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > 2020
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > at
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > 5:11
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > Hi
> > > > > > >> > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > Generally
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > speaking, I
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > approach
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > >> natively
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > addresses
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > issue
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > if
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > duplicate
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > > > objects,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > because
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > schema
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> will be
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > created
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > cache,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > >> happens
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> now.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > Basically,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > schema
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > define
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > whether
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > primary
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > key
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > or
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > not,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > which
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> fields
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > are
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > included
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > that
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > we
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > would
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > have
> > > > > > >> > > > > must
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > compliant
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > this,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > > work
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > with
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > data
> > > > > > >> > > > as
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> with a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > set
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > of
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > records,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> pairs.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > However,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> could
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > please
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > between
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > ORM?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > Is
> > > > > > >> > > > > there
> > > > > > >> > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> use
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > case
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Ignite
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > (I
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > >> haven't
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > seen
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > one
> > > > > > >> > > > so
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> far)?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> If
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > so,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > what
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > side
> > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > support
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > this?
> > > > > > >> > > > > In
> > > > > > >> > > > > > my
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > > > > already
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > have.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > Am
> > > > > > >> > > I
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> missing
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > something?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > -Val
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > On
> > > > > > >> > > > Mon,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > Aug
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 31,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 2020
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > at
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > 2:08
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > > > > >> > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > Val,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > I
> > > > > > >> > > > > would
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> propose
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > adding
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > another
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > point
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > motivations
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > list
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > which
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > related
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > ORM
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > frameworks
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > > > > Hibernate,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > Micronaut
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > many
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> others.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Presently,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > storage
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > engine
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requires
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > distinguish
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > > > > objects
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > from
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > value
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> ones
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> that
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > complicate
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> those
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > ORM
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> frameworks
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> (especially
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> if
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > key
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > object
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > comprises
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> fields).
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > More
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > on
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > this
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> can
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > be
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > found
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> here:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > It
> > > > > > >> > > > > will
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> nice
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > if
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > new
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > work
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> with
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > single
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> entity
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > object
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > when
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > comes
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > need
> > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > split
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > entity
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> into
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > key
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > value.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Just
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > 3.0
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > has
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > all
> > > > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > essential
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > public
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > APIs
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > single-entity
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > based
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > approach.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > What
> > > > > > >> > > > > do
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> you
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > think?
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > -
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > Denis
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > On
> > > > > > >> > > > > Fri,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Aug
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 28,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > 2020
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > at
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > 3:50
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Igniters,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > One
> > > > > > >> > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > big
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proposed
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > > > > >> so-called
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> "schema-first
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > approach".
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > To
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > started
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> writing
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > IEP
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > for
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> this
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > change:
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > Please
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> take a
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > look
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > let
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > > > > immediate
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> thoughts,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> suggestions,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > or
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > objections.
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > -Val
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Best
> > > > > > >> > > > > > regards,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Ivan
> > > > > > >> > > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Best
> > > > > > >> > > > regards,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Ivan
> > > > > > >> > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >>>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Best
> > > > > > regards,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Ivan
> > > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best
> > > > > regards,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Andrey
> > > V.
> > > > > > >> Mashenkov
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best
> > > regards,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey
> V.
> > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V.
> > Mashenkov
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > --
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > --
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > > > --
> > > > > > >> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > >> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > --
> > > > > > >> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > --
> > > > > > >> > Best regards,
> > > > > > >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >
>


-- 
Best regards,
Andrey V. Mashenkov

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Ilya Kasnacheev <il...@gmail.com>]

Hello!

If we have determined that next varstring is too long to fit in 1-2 bytes
index, we can re-pack the whole object from scratch with 2-4 bytes index.

Such as:

We write all fixlen fields in the beginning.
We start to write first varlen string. Accumulated len is <255 so we use
single byte length
We start to write second varlen string. Accumulated len is now >255 but
<64k so we re-pack the first varlen string with 2 byte length also.
We start to write third varlen (let's say it's byte[] blob). Accumulated
len is suddenly >64k so we re-pack already written varlen fields to use 4
byte lengths/offsets.

The overhead here is not as great as you could expect. When reading, we
already know total varlen fields section length so we also know how many
bytes size offsets take.

Regards,

-- 
Ilya Kasnacheev


вт, 25 мая 2021 г. в 16:40, Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>:

> >
> > I never said that you can predict string size.
>
> You suggest to use offsets use 1-2-4 bytes based on overall varlen section
> size.
> Actually, we can't predict varlen section size if a string column defined
> before serializing strings.
>
> Do you suggest use the smallest possible offset size if no columns of
> string type are defined,
> but fallback to 4-byte if a string column goes into play?
>
> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 6:59 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Hello!
> >
> > I never said that you can predict string size. Strings are definitely
> > varlen. You don't know string length when looking at object schema, I
> don't
> > even see why char-to-byte mapping is relevant here.
> >
> > What do you think about the approach where offsets use 1-2-4 bytes based
> on
> > overall varlen section size, which is known in advance as I assume?
> >
> > With compression, some optimizations may be possible since you can
> compress
> > blocks of data and then concatenate these compressed fragments. So you
> can
> > say that "I want 40-th byte of 3rd fragment" but it sounds like an
> overkill
> > mostly.
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Ilya Kasnacheev
> >
> >
> > чт, 20 мая 2021 г. в 18:23, Andrey Mashenkov <andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> >:
> >
> > > Hi Ilya,
> > >
> > > Not yet, we can't predict string size [1] as a character may be encoded
> > in
> > > 1-4 bytes.
> > > So, we could either use a heuristic or serialize every string into an
> > array
> > > at first then assemble a row and copy the array into the row buffer.
> > >
> > > Good point, we can skip vartable for the first varlen field.
> > > We have a similar ticket [2] for the case with a single varlen. I'll
> fix
> > > the description to omit a first varlen offset.
> > >
> > > Agree, compression looks tricky and ineffective in this case.
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4385623/bytes-of-a-string-in-java/4385653
> > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14746
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 5:58 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> > ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello!
> > > >
> > > > How about:
> > > >
> > > > First, all fields for which we know their specific order and size go,
> > > such
> > > > as byte, short, int, long, boolean. This means that any short field
> > will
> > > > take just 2 bytes with no padding.
> > > > Then, all var-len fields go, such as nested object, strings, etc.
> > > >
> > > > After that, we know total object size already, right?
> > > > If size <= 256, then all offsets are 1 byte unsigned.
> > > > If size < 65k, then all offsets are 2 byte.
> > > > Else, all offsets are 4 byte.
> > > >
> > > > We can count offsets starting from the first byle after constant
> fields
> > > > section and offsets section.
> > > > For the first varlen field, the offset is always 0, so we may skip
> this
> > > one
> > > > and start with offset of the second var field.
> > > >
> > > > For compression it is trickier. I suggest not having any explicit
> > support
> > > > for compression right here, so that later on compression may use a
> > > > different object layout to be more efficient.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > --
> > > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ср, 19 мая 2021 г. в 16:43, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > >
> > > > > I've create a ticket [1] for large row support.
> > > > >
> > > > > We use 2-bytes offsets for varlen fields that are supposed to be
> > large
> > > > > enough.
> > > > > AFAIK, some users use multi-MB values and 64k per Row looks like a
> > > strong
> > > > > limitation.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, we have either to increase offset_size up to 4-bytes or use
> some
> > > > > advanced mechanics for compression or adaptive offset_size.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Increasing offset size may add overhead for keys like next:
> > > > > class Key {
> > > > >    int id;
> > > > >    String str; // Some short string code.
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. Compression will require table to be decompressed on every
> varlen
> > > > column
> > > > > access, e.g. for comparison purposes while index scan.
> > > > > Also, we may need to pre-calculate compressed table size to avoid
> > > buffer
> > > > > copying (shrinking or extending) during row assembling.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. Adaptive offset_size implies row size estimation.
> > > > > We already do to reduce the probability of buffer expanding, but we
> > > need
> > > > a
> > > > > high margin for this purpose.
> > > > > 'String' values size is a hard part as String character may be
> > encoded
> > > > into
> > > > > 1-4 bytes depending on Charset.
> > > > >
> > > > > Usually, a user don't want to care about Column length limitation
> and
> > > > chars
> > > > > collation.
> > > > > So, we can expect a Java default behavior will be used in most
> cases:
> > > > > 'unlimited' string size with up to 4-bytes characters support.
> > > > >
> > > > > Possible strategies
> > > > > 3.1 Introduce 'Collation' for string and validate all the chars on
> > row
> > > > > assembling and rely on the user limited column length.
> > > > > Thus, we can use varlen limits (+ collation for strings) to
> estimate
> > > row
> > > > > size and pre-calculate offset_size to keep it within the schema.
> > > > > 3.2 Introduce more row flags for different offset sizes (byte,
> short,
> > > > int)
> > > > > and calculate row size right before assembling for choosing
> > appropriate
> > > > > offset_size.
> > > > > Heuristics for strings using collation is also applicable here and
> > keep
> > > > > algorithm complexity independent from the data length, but the
> schema
> > > > only.
> > > > >
> > > > > I like an approach '3.2' because we already estimate row size.
> > > > > Any thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14743
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 7:25 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > I've prepared PR [1] with Public Table API for final review.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Main points
> > > > > > There are 4 projection interfaces over Table for different
> > use-cases
> > > > > > (Plain record vs Key-Value and POJO vs Binary object) declaring
> > > > > synchronous
> > > > > > and asynchronous methods.
> > > > > > Async method returns IgniteFuture as there is no consensus on
> > > > > IgniteFuture
> > > > > > vs JDK CompletableFuture yet.
> > > > > > API implementation is incomplete, it just an example of how it
> > could
> > > be
> > > > > > done and will be implemented in future tasks.
> > > > > > Tuple/TupleAssembler renamed to Row/RowAssembler. Now Tuple is
> > just a
> > > > > > dictionary representing a subset of columns, while Row is a
> > > > schema-aware
> > > > > > object containing key and value columns respectively to the data
> > > > layout.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:26 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > ptupitsyn@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> I see, thanks.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Let's discuss the return type - Future is not the one to use.
> > > > > >> We should return CompletionStage, CompletableFuture, or
> introduce
> > > our
> > > > > own
> > > > > >> interface.
> > > > > >> We agreed on the last one (custom interface) for thin clients:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/IEP-51-Java-Thin-Client-Async-API-td48900.html
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I believe that for Ignite 3.0 we should have the following:
> > > > > >> public interface IgniteFuture<T> extends Future<T>,
> > > > CompletionStage<T> {
> > > > > >>     // No-op.
> > > > > >> }
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Thoughts?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:16 AM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > >> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > Pavel,
> > > > > >> > There are 2 PR's for the ticket[1] with two different APIs
> > > > suggested.
> > > > > >> > Please, take a look at PR [2].
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14035
> > > > > >> > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/69
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:11 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > Andrey, I can't find any async methods,
> > > > > >> > > can you please check if the changes are pushed?
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 10:06 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > >> > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > Pavel, good point.
> > > > > >> > > > Thanks. I've added async methods.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 2:29 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > >> ptupitsyn@apache.org>
> > > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > What about corresponding async APIs, do we add them now
> or
> > > > > later?
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 8:11 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > >> > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > Hi Igniters.
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > I've created a PR for Table access API [1].
> > > > > >> > > > > > This is an initial version. So, any
> > suggestions\objections
> > > > are
> > > > > >> > > > welcomed.
> > > > > >> > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to write your comments and\or
> > > > examples
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > > > PR.
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > Ignite-api module contains API classes, e.g. TableView
> > > > classes
> > > > > >> as
> > > > > >> > > > > > projections for a table for different purposes.
> > > > > >> > > > > > Ignite-table contains dummy implementation and Example
> > > class
> > > > > >> > > explained
> > > > > >> > > > > how
> > > > > >> > > > > > it is supposed to be used.
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > Also, I'm still waiting for any feedback for Schema
> > > > > >> configuration
> > > > > >> > > > public
> > > > > >> > > > > > API PR [2].
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/33
> > > > > >> > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:05 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > >> > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > I've updated a PR regarding your feedback [1].
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:58 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > >> > > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> Folks,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> I updated the IEP to contain the missing pieces;
> > > > actually,
> > > > > >> most
> > > > > >> > of
> > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> questions here were covered by the text. Please let
> > me
> > > > know
> > > > > >> if
> > > > > >> > > there
> > > > > >> > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> something still missing or unclear.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> чт, 31 дек. 2020 г. в 12:48, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > >> > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Mikhail and Igniters,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Thanks for your comments. The questions are
> > > reasonable,
> > > > > >> > though I
> > > > > >> > > > > think
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> all
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > concerns are addressed by the IEP as Val
> > mentioned. I
> > > > > will
> > > > > >> > > update
> > > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > document according to your questions in the
> > following
> > > > > week
> > > > > >> or
> > > > > >> > > so,
> > > > > >> > > > so
> > > > > >> > > > > > we
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> can
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > have a constructive discussion further.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > ср, 30 дек. 2020 г. в 11:45, Michael Cherkasov <
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > michael.cherkasov@gmail.com>:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Hi Val, Andrey,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> thank you for clarifying.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> I still have a few comments.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 1. one table == one schema. KV vs SQL:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Looks like all agreed that KV is just a special
> > case
> > > > of
> > > > > a
> > > > > >> > > regular
> > > > > >> > > > > > table
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> with (blob,blob) schema.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> I worry about the case when the user starts from
> > KV
> > > > case
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> > > > later
> > > > > >> > > > > > will
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> try
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to expand it and try to leverage SQL for the
> > > existing
> > > > KV
> > > > > >> > table
> > > > > >> > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> won't be
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> able to do so and will require to reload data.
> > which
> > > > > isn't
> > > > > >> > > > > convenient
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> sometimes not even possible. Is it possible to
> > > > extract a
> > > > > >> new
> > > > > >> > > > field
> > > > > >> > > > > > from
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> (blob, blob) schema and apply index on it?
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 2. Could you please also list all ways of schema
> > > > > >> definition
> > > > > >> > in
> > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> IEP? It
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> significant change and I bet the main point of
> > this
> > > > IEP,
> > > > > >> > > everyone
> > > > > >> > > > > > hates
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> QueryEntities, they are difficult to manage and
> in
> > > > > >> general,
> > > > > >> > > it's
> > > > > >> > > > > very
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> confusing to have a data model(schemas) and
> > > > node/cluster
> > > > > >> > > > > > configuration
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> in
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> one place.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> So there will be SchemaBuilder and SQL to define
> > > > > schemas,
> > > > > >> but
> > > > > >> > > > > Andrey
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> also
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> mentioned annotations.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> I personally against configuration via
> > annotations,
> > > > > while
> > > > > >> > it's
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> convenient
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> for development, it difficult to manage because
> > > > > different
> > > > > >> > > classes
> > > > > >> > > > > can
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> be
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> deployed on different clients/servers nodes and
> it
> > > can
> > > > > >> lead
> > > > > >> > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> unpredictable results.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 3. IEP doesn't mention field type changes, only
> > > > drop/add
> > > > > >> > > fields.
> > > > > >> > > > > > Field
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> type
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> changes are extremely painful right now(if even
> > > > > >> possible), so
> > > > > >> > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > > would
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> be
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> nice if some scenarios would be supported(like
> > > > > >> int8->int16,
> > > > > >> > or
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> int8->String).
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 4. got it, I thought IEP will have more details
> > > about
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> implementation.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> I've seen Andrey even sent benchmark results
> for a
> > > new
> > > > > >> > > > > serialization,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> will
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> ping him about this.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 5. Thanks for the clarification. I had a wrong
> > > > > >> understanding
> > > > > >> > of
> > > > > >> > > > > > strick
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> mode.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> вт, 29 дек. 2020 г. в 19:32, Valentin
> Kulichenko <
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Hi Mike,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Thanks for providing your feedback. Please see
> > my
> > > > > >> comments
> > > > > >> > > > below.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > I would also encourage you to go through the
> > > IEP-54
> > > > > [1]
> > > > > >> -
> > > > > >> > it
> > > > > >> > > > has
> > > > > >> > > > > a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> lot
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> of
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > detail on the topic.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > [1]
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > -Val
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:22 PM Michael
> > > Cherkasov <
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > michael.cherkasov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Hi all,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > I reviewed the mail thread and proposal page
> > > and I
> > > > > >> still
> > > > > >> > > > don't
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> fully
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > understand what is going to be changed, I
> > would
> > > > > really
> > > > > >> > > > > appreciate
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> it
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> if
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > will answer a few questions:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 1. Are you going to leave only one schema
> per
> > > > cache?
> > > > > >> if
> > > > > >> > so,
> > > > > >> > > > > will
> > > > > >> > > > > > be
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> there
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > an option to have a table with arbitrary
> > > > > objects(pure
> > > > > >> KV
> > > > > >> > > > case)?
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > My opinion is that KV case should be natively
> > > > > >> supported. I
> > > > > >> > > > think
> > > > > >> > > > > > this
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> still
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > needs to be thought over, my current view on
> > this
> > > is
> > > > > >> that
> > > > > >> > we
> > > > > >> > > > > should
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> have
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > separate APIs for KV and more generic
> storages.
> > KV
> > > > > >> storage
> > > > > >> > > can
> > > > > >> > > > be
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > implemented as a "table" with two BLOB fields
> > > where
> > > > we
> > > > > >> will
> > > > > >> > > > store
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > serialized key-value pairs. That would imply
> > > > > >> > deserialization
> > > > > >> > > on
> > > > > >> > > > > > read,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> but I
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > believe this is OK for KV use cases. I'm happy
> > to
> > > > hear
> > > > > >> > other
> > > > > >> > > > > ideas
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> though
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > :)
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0 have
> to
> > > > > define
> > > > > >> > > schema?
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > SchemaBuilder
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > and SQL only? Is there an option to put the
> > > schema
> > > > > >> > > definition
> > > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > configuration?(I really don't like this, I
> > would
> > > > > >> prefer
> > > > > >> > to
> > > > > >> > > > have
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > separate scripts to create schemas)
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > There will be no such thing as a static
> > > > configuration
> > > > > in
> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > > > > first
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> place.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Tables and schemas are created in runtime.
> Even
> > if
> > > > > there
> > > > > >> > is a
> > > > > >> > > > > file
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> provided
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > on node startup, this file is only applied in
> > the
> > > > > scope
> > > > > >> of
> > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> 'start'
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > operation. All configurations will be stored
> in
> > a
> > > > meta
> > > > > >> > > storage
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> available to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > all nodes, as opposed to individual files.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 3. Is there a way to change field type? if
> > yes,
> > > > can
> > > > > >> it be
> > > > > >> > > > done
> > > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > runtime?
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Absolutely! IEP-54 has a whole section about
> > > schema
> > > > > >> > > evolution.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going to
> be
> > > > > >> re-worked
> > > > > >> > > too,
> > > > > >> > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> there
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> any
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > IEP for this?
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > BinaryMarshaller as a tool for arbitrary
> object
> > > > > >> > serialization
> > > > > >> > > > > will
> > > > > >> > > > > > be
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> gone,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > but we will reuse a lot of its concept to
> > > implement
> > > > an
> > > > > >> > > internal
> > > > > >> > > > > > tuple
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > serialization mechanism. IEP-54 has the
> > > description
> > > > of
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > proposed
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> data
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > format.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 5. I don't like automatic schema evaluation
> > > when a
> > > > > new
> > > > > >> > > field
> > > > > >> > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> added
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > automatically on record put, so is there a
> way
> > > to
> > > > > >> > prohibit
> > > > > >> > > > this
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> behavior?
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >  I think all schema changes should be done
> > only
> > > > > >> > explicitly
> > > > > >> > > > > except
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> initial
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > schema creation.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > The way I see it is that we should have two
> > modes:
> > > > > >> > > schema-first
> > > > > >> > > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > schema-last. Schema-first means exactly what
> > > you've
> > > > > >> > > described -
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> schemas
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> are
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > defined and updated explicitly by the user. In
> > the
> > > > > >> > > schema-last
> > > > > >> > > > > > mode,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > the user does not deal with schemas, as they
> are
> > > > > >> inferred
> > > > > >> > > from
> > > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> data
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > inserted into tables. We should definitely not
> > mix
> > > > > these
> > > > > >> > > modes
> > > > > >> > > > -
> > > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> has
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > be one or another. And it probably makes sense
> > to
> > > > > >> discuss
> > > > > >> > > which
> > > > > >> > > > > > mode
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> should
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > be the default one.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Thanks,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Mike.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey
> Mashenkov
> > <
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Hi, Igniters.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > We all know that the current QueryEntity
> API
> > > is
> > > > > not
> > > > > >> > > > > convenient
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > needs
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > be reworked.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema
> > > > > >> configuration
> > > > > >> > > > public
> > > > > >> > > > > > API
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> for
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Ignite 3.0.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > New schema configuration uses Builder
> > pattern,
> > > > > which
> > > > > >> > > looks
> > > > > >> > > > > more
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > comfortable
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > to use.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package
> > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> API
> > > > > >> > > > > itself,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > draft
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and a test that demonstrates how the API
> > could
> > > > be
> > > > > >> used.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Please note:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class
> with
> > > > static
> > > > > >> > > factory
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> methods.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * The implementation is decoupled and can
> be
> > > > > easily
> > > > > >> > > > extracted
> > > > > >> > > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > separate
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > module if we decide to do so.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are
> > > > missed,
> > > > > >> they
> > > > > >> > > will
> > > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> added
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > lately
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > in separate tickes.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Index configuration extends marker
> > interface
> > > > > that
> > > > > >> > makes
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> possible
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Hopfully, we could add a persistent
> > > geo-indices
> > > > > >> support
> > > > > >> > > in
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> future.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Supposedly, current table schema can be
> > > > changed
> > > > > >> via
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> builder-like
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > structure as it is done if JOOQ project.
> See
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 'TableModificationBuilder'
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > details.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have
> > > > > 'toBuilder()'
> > > > > >> > > > > converter
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> for
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> that
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > purpose as it is a Schema Manager
> > > responsibility
> > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > create
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> mutator
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > objects
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > from the current schema,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > but implementing the Schema manager is out
> > of
> > > > > scope
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> > > > will
> > > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > designed
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > within the next task.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Interfaces implementations are out of
> > > scope. I
> > > > > did
> > > > > >> > not
> > > > > >> > > > > intend
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > merge
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > them right now, but for test/demostration
> > > > > purposes.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > It is NOT the final version and some may
> be
> > > > > changed
> > > > > >> > > before
> > > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> first
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > release of course.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > For now, we have to agree if we can
> proceed
> > > with
> > > > > >> this
> > > > > >> > > > > approach
> > > > > >> > > > > > or
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> some
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > issues should be resolved at first.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Any thoughts or objections?
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Are interfaces good enough to be merged
> > within
> > > > the
> > > > > >> > > current
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> ticket?
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> jury.gerzhedowich@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned
> > > types:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 2. It requires adding new types to the
> > > > internal
> > > > > >> > > > > > representation,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > protocol,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > e.t.c.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 3. internal representation should be the
> > > same
> > > > as
> > > > > >> we
> > > > > >> > > keep
> > > > > >> > > > > sign
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> types.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > So
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > will not requires more memory
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 4. User should be aware of specifics
> such
> > > > types
> > > > > >> for
> > > > > >> > > > > platforms
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> which
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > not
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > support unsigned types. For example, a
> > user
> > > > > could
> > > > > >> > > derive
> > > > > >> > > > -6
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> value
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> in
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits
> > > > > perspective
> > > > > >> > will
> > > > > >> > > > be
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> right). I
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > think
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such
> > > > cases,
> > > > > >> > > > especially
> > > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> will be
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > bad
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for unsigned long when we require
> returns
> > > > > >> BigInteger
> > > > > >> > > > type.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 5. Possible it requires some
> > suffix/preffix
> > > > for
> > > > > >> new
> > > > > >> > > types
> > > > > >> > > > > > like
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > '250u' -
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value
> > type.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 6. It requires a little bit more
> expensive
> > > > > >> comparison
> > > > > >> > > > logic
> > > > > >> > > > > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > indexes
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for
> > > > > >> expressions.
> > > > > >> > I
> > > > > >> > > > > think
> > > > > >> > > > > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> not
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > possible for the current H2 engine and
> > > > probably
> > > > > >> > > possible
> > > > > >> > > > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> new
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from
> > > > anybody
> > > > > >> who
> > > > > >> > > > > involved
> > > > > >> > > > > > in
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> this
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > part
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey
> > > > Goncharuk <
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Actually, we can support comparisons
> in
> > > 3.0:
> > > > > >> once
> > > > > >> > we
> > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> actual
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > type
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > information, we can make proper
> runtime
> > > > > >> adjustments
> > > > > >> > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> conversions
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > treat those values as unsigned - it
> will
> > > be
> > > > > >> just a
> > > > > >> > > bit
> > > > > >> > > > > more
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > expensive.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel
> > > > Tupitsyn <
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong
> results
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality
> > > comparisons
> > > > > >> and so
> > > > > >> > > on
> > > > > >> > > > > are
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> broken
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I
> > > > mentioned
> > > > > >> this
> > > > > >> > > > > > somewhere
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > above.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can
> document
> > > that
> > > > > >> SQL is
> > > > > >> > > not
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> supported
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > on
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > those
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > types,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > end of story.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM
> Alexey
> > > > > >> Goncharuk
> > > > > >> > <
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Folks, I think this is a
> reasonable
> > > > > >> request. I
> > > > > >> > > > > thought
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> about
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > this
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > when
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > I
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but
> hesitated
> > to
> > > > add
> > > > > >> > these
> > > > > >> > > > > types
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> right
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > away.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite
> > since
> > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > beginning
> > > > > >> > > > > > with
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> .NET
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > C++
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > :)
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I have some doubts that it
> actually
> > > > works
> > > > > as
> > > > > >> > > > > expected,
> > > > > >> > > > > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> needs
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > some
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > checking (will be glad if my
> > concerns
> > > > are
> > > > > >> > false):
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - It's true that equality check
> > > works
> > > > > >> > > properly,
> > > > > >> > > > > but
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> for
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> SQL
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > range
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    queries it will break unless
> some
> > > > > special
> > > > > >> > care
> > > > > >> > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> taken
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> on
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > side:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java
> > (byte)255
> > > > will
> > > > > >> be
> > > > > >> > > > > converted
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> -1,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > which
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we
> > > don't
> > > > > have
> > > > > >> > > > unsigned
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> types
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > now,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > I
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > doubt
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    works.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - There is an obvious
> > > cross-platform
> > > > > data
> > > > > >> > loss
> > > > > >> > > > > when
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > "intuitive"
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > type
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8
> > > > > >> corresponds to
> > > > > >> > > > byte
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> type in
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > .NET,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > but
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will
> > have
> > > > to
> > > > > >> use
> > > > > >> > > short
> > > > > >> > > > > > type
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> in
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Java,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    will also need to take care of
> > the
> > > > > range
> > > > > >> > check
> > > > > >> > > > > > during
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > serialization).
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > I
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    think we can even allow to try
> to
> > > > > >> > deserialize
> > > > > >> > > a
> > > > > >> > > > > > value
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> into
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > arbitrary
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > type,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    but throw an exception if the
> > range
> > > > is
> > > > > >> out
> > > > > >> > of
> > > > > >> > > > > > bounds.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's
> > > comments.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the
> IEP
> > > > once
> > > > > >> all
> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > details
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> are
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > settled
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > here?
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19,
> Andrey
> > > > > >> Mashenkov
> > > > > >> > <
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond
> 2^63
> > > > can't
> > > > > >> be
> > > > > >> > > > treated
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> correctly
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > now
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong
> > > results)
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I think we could make "true"
> > support
> > > > for
> > > > > >> > > unsigned
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> types,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> but
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > they
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able
> to
> > > map
> > > > > >> uint64
> > > > > >> > to
> > > > > >> > > > > Java
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> long
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > primitive,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > but
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > BigInteger only.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > As for indices, we could read
> > uint64
> > > > to
> > > > > >> Java
> > > > > >> > > > long,
> > > > > >> > > > > > but
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> treat
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > negative
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > values in a different way to
> > > preserve
> > > > > >> correct
> > > > > >> > > > > > ordering.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > These limitations will affect
> only
> > > > mixed
> > > > > >> > > > > environments
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> when
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > .Net
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Java
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > used to access the data.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Will this solution address your
> > > > issues?
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM
> > > Pavel
> > > > > >> > Tupitsyn
> > > > > >> > > <
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite
> > > since
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > beginning
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> with
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > .NET
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > C++
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > :)
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > You can use unsigned
> primitives
> > as
> > > > > cache
> > > > > >> > keys
> > > > > >> > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> values,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > as
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > fields
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > properties,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in
> > WHERE
> > > > x=y
> > > > > >> > > clauses)
> > > > > >> > > > -
> > > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> works
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > transparently
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the users.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and
> > treats
> > > > > those
> > > > > >> > > values
> > > > > >> > > > > as
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > corresponding
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > signed
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > However, this abstraction
> leaks
> > in
> > > > > some
> > > > > >> > cases
> > > > > >> > > > > only
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> because
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > there
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > are
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > no
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a
> very
> > > > > simple
> > > > > >> > > change
> > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > protocol
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > -
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > add
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > type
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same
> > way
> > > as
> > > > > >> signed
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> counterparts.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00
> PM
> > > > Andrey
> > > > > >> > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > >> > > > > <
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in
> Java
> > > > > (bitwise
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> representation
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > same)
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET
> class
> > > > with a
> > > > > >> > uByte
> > > > > >> > > > > field
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> map
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > it
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > 'uint8'
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > column.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value
> > to
> > > > > "250"
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> > > put
> > > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> object
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > into a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > table,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits
> to
> > a
> > > > > single
> > > > > >> > byte
> > > > > >> > > > > > 'int8'
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > column.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't
> > > deserialize
> > > > it
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> > > > > directly
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Java
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > object
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > field
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should
> map
> > > > uint8
> > > > > >> type
> > > > > >> > to
> > > > > >> > > > > Java
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 'short'
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > type
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > because the one expected to
> > see
> > > > > "250"
> > > > > >> as
> > > > > >> > a
> > > > > >> > > > > value
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> which
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > doesn't
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > fit
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > signed type.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need
> a
> > > > > >> BigInteger
> > > > > >> > > > field
> > > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Java.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat
> > > > column
> > > > > >> value
> > > > > >> > > as
> > > > > >> > > > > Java
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 'byte'
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > as
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > is,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > because
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a
> > > > > negative
> > > > > >> > > value,
> > > > > >> > > > so
> > > > > >> > > > > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> should
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > be
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > cast
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > short
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to
> > > BigInteger
> > > > > for
> > > > > >> > > > uint64)
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type
> will
> > > > > require
> > > > > >> a
> > > > > >> > > > > different
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > comparator.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look
> simpler.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23
> > PM
> > > > > Pavel
> > > > > >> > > > Tupitsyn
> > > > > >> > > > > <
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think range
> > narrowing
> > > > is a
> > > > > >> good
> > > > > >> > > > idea.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems
> with
> > > the
> > > > > >> simple
> > > > > >> > > > > > approach
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> I
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > described?
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
> 4:01
> > > PM
> > > > > >> Andrey
> > > > > >> > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> <
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with
> > narrowing
> > > > > range
> > > > > >> > for
> > > > > >> > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> types
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > then
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > we
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > could
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > add a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned
> > > types
> > > > on
> > > > > >> > schema
> > > > > >> > > > > level
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> (like
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > nullability
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > flag)
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed
> > > types
> > > > > in
> > > > > >> > > > storage.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a
> > separate
> > > > > >> storage
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> type-system
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > binary
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > protocol
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however
> most
> > of
> > > > > type
> > > > > >> > will
> > > > > >> > > > > match
> > > > > >> > > > > > 1
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 1
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > with
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > storage
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (native)
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will
> > either
> > > > > have
> > > > > >> a
> > > > > >> > > > > separate
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> type
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> id
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > or
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > treat
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > serialized
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema
> > > > (signed
> > > > > >> or
> > > > > >> > > > > unsigned
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> flag).
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can
> > ever
> > > > > >> foresee
> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> consequences
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > of
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > using
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to
> > > > unsigned
> > > > > >> types
> > > > > >> > > > > > perfectly
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> works
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > with
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > some
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > database,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into
> Ignite
> > > > > >> successor
> > > > > >> > > > > > confession
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> with
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > our
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > "native"
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that
> > he
> > > > can
> > > > > >> use
> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > > > > power
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> of
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Ignite
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Compute
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will
> > > either
> > > > > >> fail to
> > > > > >> > > use
> > > > > >> > > > > his
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > unsigned
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > data
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > on
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Java
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > due
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues
> > due
> > > to
> > > > > >> > natural
> > > > > >> > > > Java
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> type
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > system
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > limitations
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to
> > > > BigInteger.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively
> > > > > supported
> > > > > >> > types
> > > > > >> > > > > with
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> possible
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > value
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > ranges
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be
> > known.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is
> > > what
> > > > > >> > trade-off
> > > > > >> > > > we
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> found
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > acceptable:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > narrowing
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or
> use
> > > > types
> > > > > >> of
> > > > > >> > > wider
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> range on
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > systems
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > like
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Java.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
> > 3:25
> > > > PM
> > > > > >> Igor
> > > > > >> > > > > Sapego <
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it
> is
> > > not
> > > > so
> > > > > >> hard
> > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> implement
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > comparison
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > of
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so
> it
> > > does
> > > > > not
> > > > > >> > seem
> > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > be a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> big
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > issue
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > from
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > my
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of
> > > unsigned
> > > > > >> types
> > > > > >> > > from
> > > > > >> > > > > > Java
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> - I
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > think,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > if
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > user
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is
> going
> > > to
> > > > > >> > interact
> > > > > >> > > > with
> > > > > >> > > > > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> from
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > he
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > knows
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > he
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for
> use
> > > from
> > > > > >> > > platforms
> > > > > >> > > > > > where
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> they
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > have
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > native
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > widely
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or
> > .NET,
> > > > > where
> > > > > >> > > users
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> currently
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > have
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > make a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > manual
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > casting
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop
> using
> > > > > unsigned
> > > > > >> > > types
> > > > > >> > > > > when
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> they
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > use
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Ignite.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020
> at
> > > 3:06
> > > > > PM
> > > > > >> > Pavel
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> Tupitsyn <
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much
> > > > simpler:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol
> support
> > > for
> > > > > >> those
> > > > > >> > > > types
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > (basically,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > just
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > add
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as
> long
> > in
> > > > > Java
> > > > > >> > > > (bitwise
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > representation
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > same)
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not
> have
> > > > > >> unsigned
> > > > > >> > > > > integers,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> so
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> we
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > can
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > simply
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > say
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value
> > relative
> > > > > >> > comparison
> > > > > >> > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > not
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > supported
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > in
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > SQL
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (equality
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020
> > at
> > > > 2:40
> > > > > >> PM
> > > > > >> > > > Andrey
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Mashenkov
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > <
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and
> > > Igor.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas
> to
> > > > have
> > > > > >> i8 or
> > > > > >> > > > int8
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> instead of
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Integer.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming
> > doesn't
> > > > > >> address
> > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > issue.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal
> > types
> > > > > >> should
> > > > > >> > be
> > > > > >> > > > > > portable
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > across
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > different
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > systems
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned
> > type
> > > > > >> support.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue
> here
> > is
> > > > > that
> > > > > >> > > > unsigned
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> types
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > cover
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > different
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > ranges.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we
> want
> > > to
> > > > > >> > > introduce a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> uLong.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look
> > like a
> > > > big
> > > > > >> deal
> > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > add
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> uLong
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > type
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > support
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > at
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > storage
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8
> > > bytes
> > > > > and
> > > > > >> > then
> > > > > >> > > > use
> > > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> in
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> e.g.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > .Net
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > only.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could
> > > support
> > > > > it
> > > > > >> in
> > > > > >> > > e.g.
> > > > > >> > > > > > Java?
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind
> > > Long
> > > > > >> range
> > > > > >> > is
> > > > > >> > > > > about
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> (2^-63
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > ..
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 2^63)
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > range
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first
> option
> > is
> > > > to
> > > > > >> > > restrict
> > > > > >> > > > > > range
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> (0
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > ..
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > 2^63).
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > This
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no
> > > conversion,
> > > > > but
> > > > > >> > > > doesn't
> > > > > >> > > > > > look
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> like
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 'real'
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go
> > > worse
> > > > > >> when
> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > > > > user
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> will
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> use
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > uByte,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > as
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > limitation
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally
> > > > > unusable.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one
> is
> > > to
> > > > > map
> > > > > >> > > > unsigned
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> types
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > type
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > of
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > wider
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for
> > > > negative
> > > > > >> > values.
> > > > > >> > > > > E.g.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> uLong to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > BigInteger.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use
> > > > primitive
> > > > > >> Java
> > > > > >> > > > type
> > > > > >> > > > > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Long
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > here.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > However,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > still
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store
> > > uLong
> > > > > in 8
> > > > > >> > > bytes,
> > > > > >> > > > > but
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> have a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > special
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > comparator
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to
> > > avoid
> > > > > >> > unwanted
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > deserialization.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24,
> 2020
> > > at
> > > > > >> 2:04 PM
> > > > > >> > > > Pavel
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Tupitsyn
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > <
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get
> > rid
> > > > of
> > > > > >> > "long,
> > > > > >> > > > > short,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> byte"
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > in
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > protocol
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust
> > > style,
> > > > > >> which
> > > > > >> > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > concise
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > unambiguous:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16,
> u16,
> > > etc
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24,
> > 2020
> > > > at
> > > > > >> 1:58
> > > > > >> > PM
> > > > > >> > > > > Igor
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Sapego <
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally
> > support
> > > > > that.
> > > > > >> > Also,
> > > > > >> > > > if
> > > > > >> > > > > we
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> are
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > aiming
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger
> > > > > >> > > platform-independance,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas
> > we
> > > > may
> > > > > >> want
> > > > > >> > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > support
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > bit-notation
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (int32,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can
> mean
> > a
> > > > > >> different
> > > > > >> > > > type
> > > > > >> > > > > on
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > different
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > platforms
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens
> > > often
> > > > > when
> > > > > >> > > using
> > > > > >> > > > > ODBC
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> for
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > example).
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov
> 24,
> > > 2020
> > > > > at
> > > > > >> > 1:34
> > > > > >> > > PM
> > > > > >> > > > > > Pavel
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Tupitsyn
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > <
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we
> > > should
> > > > > >> support
> > > > > >> > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> data
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > types:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte,
> uShort,
> > > > uInt,
> > > > > >> > uLong
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does
> not
> > > have
> > > > > >> them,
> > > > > >> > > but
> > > > > >> > > > > many
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> other
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > languages
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > do,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the
> > > > growing
> > > > > >> > number
> > > > > >> > > > of
> > > > > >> > > > > > thin
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > clients
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > this
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example,
> > in
> > > > > >> current
> > > > > >> > > > > > Ignite.NET
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > implementation
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > we
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > store
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed
> > > > > internally,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is
> a
> > > huge
> > > > > >> pain
> > > > > >> > > when
> > > > > >> > > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> comes
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > metadata,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > binary
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy
> to
> > > > > >> > deserialize
> > > > > >> > > > int
> > > > > >> > > > > as
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> uint
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > when
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > you
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > have
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > class,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > objections?
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov
> > 24,
> > > > 2020
> > > > > >> at
> > > > > >> > > 12:28
> > > > > >> > > > > PM
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Andrey
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Mashenkov <
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good
> point.
> > > Both
> > > > > >> > > > serializers
> > > > > >> > > > > > use
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > reflection
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However,
> we
> > > will
> > > > > >> allow
> > > > > >> > > > users
> > > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > configure
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > static
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > along
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> mode,
> > > we
> > > > > >> still
> > > > > >> > > need
> > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> validate
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > user
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > classes
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > client
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest
> > > > schema
> > > > > in
> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > > > grid
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > reflection
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can
> > find a
> > > > few
> > > > > >> > > articles
> > > > > >> > > > > on
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > internet
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > on
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > how
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll
> create
> > a
> > > > task
> > > > > >> for
> > > > > >> > > > > > supporting
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > GraalVM,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > maybe
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> > with
> > > > > >> GraalVM
> > > > > >> > > will
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> suggest a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > solution
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > or
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proper
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do
> it a
> > > bit
> > > > > >> later.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no
> > > workaround
> > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > found,
> > > > > >> > > > we
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> could
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > allow
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > users
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > write
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > own
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> serializer,
> > > but
> > > > I
> > > > > >> don't
> > > > > >> > > > think
> > > > > >> > > > > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > good
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > idea
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > expose
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to
> > the
> > > > > >> public.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue,
> Nov
> > > 24,
> > > > > >> 2020 at
> > > > > >> > > > 2:55
> > > > > >> > > > > AM
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Denis
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Magda <
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > thanks
> > > > > for
> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > update,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > serializers
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> take
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> into
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > consideration
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > native-image-generation
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> feature of
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > GraalVM?
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the
> > > > current
> > > > > >> > binary
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> marshaller,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > we
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > can't
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > even
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > generate
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the
> > code
> > > > > using
> > > > > >> > our
> > > > > >> > > > thin
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> client
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > APIs.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon,
> > Nov
> > > > 23,
> > > > > >> 2020
> > > > > >> > at
> > > > > >> > > > > 4:39
> > > > > >> > > > > > AM
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Andrey
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi
> > > Igniters,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd
> like
> > > to
> > > > > >> > continue
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> discussion
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> of
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > IEP-54
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope
> > > > everyone
> > > > > >> who
> > > > > >> > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> interested
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > had a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > chance
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > get
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> proposal
> > > > [1].
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Please,
> > do
> > > > not
> > > > > >> > > hesitate
> > > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> ask
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > questions
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > share
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > prepared
> > > > > a
> > > > > >> > > > prototype
> > > > > >> > > > > > of
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > serializer
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > [2]
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > data
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the
> > > > > proposal.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > prototy,
> > > > I
> > > > > >> > > compared
> > > > > >> > > > 2
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> approaches
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > (de)serialize
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > java
> > > > > >> > > > > reflection/unsafe
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> API
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > similar
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> the
> > > > second
> > > > > >> one
> > > > > >> > > > > > generates
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > serializer
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino
> > > > library
> > > > > >> for
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> compilation.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second
> > one
> > > > > shows
> > > > > >> > > better
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> results
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> in
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > benchmarks.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> think
> > we
> > > > can
> > > > > >> go
> > > > > >> > > with
> > > > > >> > > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > > as
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > default
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > serializer
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > reflection-based
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > implementation
> > > > > >> as a
> > > > > >> > > > > > fallback
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> if
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > someone
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There
> > are
> > > a
> > > > > >> number
> > > > > >> > of
> > > > > >> > > > > tasks
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> under
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > umbrella
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ticket
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > assignee.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW,
> I'm
> > > > going
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> > > > create
> > > > > >> > > > > > more
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > tickets
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > manager
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > implementation,
> > > > > >> but
> > > > > >> > > > would
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> like
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > clarify
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > some
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > details.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > thought
> > > > > >> > > schemaManager
> > > > > >> > > > > on
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> each
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > node
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > should
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > held:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1.
> > Local
> > > > > >> mapping
> > > > > >> > of
> > > > > >> > > > > > "schema
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > version"
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > <-->
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > validated
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> classes
> > > > pair.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2.
> > > > > >> Cluster-wide
> > > > > >> > > > schema
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> changes
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > history.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the
> > > > client
> > > > > >> side.
> > > > > >> > > > > Before
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> any
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > key-value
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > operation
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> validate a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > for a
> > > > > >> given
> > > > > >> > > > > > key-value
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> pair.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If
> there
> > > is
> > > > no
> > > > > >> > > > > > local-mapping
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> exists
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > given
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> cluster
> > > wide
> > > > > >> schema
> > > > > >> > > > has a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> more
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > recent
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > version
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > be
> > > > > >> validated
> > > > > >> > > > > against
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > latest
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > version
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> updated/actualized.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an
> > > object
> > > > > >> > doesn't
> > > > > >> > > > fit
> > > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > latest
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > schema
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > depends
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode:
> > > either
> > > > > >> fail
> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> operation
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > ('strict'
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > mode)
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> created
> > > and
> > > > a
> > > > > >> new
> > > > > >> > > > schema
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> version
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > should
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > be
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > propagated
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the
> > > > server
> > > > > >> side
> > > > > >> > we
> > > > > >> > > > > > usually
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> have
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > no
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > classes
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> tuples.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As
> > schema
> > > > > change
> > > > > >> > > > history
> > > > > >> > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > available
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > tuple
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is
> > > > possible
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> > > > upgrade
> > > > > >> > > > > > any
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > received
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > tuple
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > last
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > desialization.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus
> we
> > > > could
> > > > > >> allow
> > > > > >> > > > nodes
> > > > > >> > > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> send
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > key-value
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > pairs
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they
> > > didn't
> > > > > >> > receive a
> > > > > >> > > > > > schema
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> update
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > yet)
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > without
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > reverting
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made
> by
> > a
> > > > node
> > > > > >> with
> > > > > >> > > > newer
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> classes.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex,
> > Val,
> > > > > Ivan
> > > > > >> did
> > > > > >> > > you
> > > > > >> > > > > > mean
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > same?
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On
> Thu,
> > > Sep
> > > > > 17,
> > > > > >> > 2020
> > > > > >> > > at
> > > > > >> > > > > > 9:21
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> AM
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Ivan
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Folks,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Please
> > > do
> > > > > not
> > > > > >> > > ignore
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> history.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> We
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > had
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > thread
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> ideas.
> > > We
> > > > > can
> > > > > >> > > resume
> > > > > >> > > > > it.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > 2020-09-10
> > > > > >> 0:08
> > > > > >> > > > > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Denis
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Magda
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > <
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Val,
> > > > makes
> > > > > >> > sense,
> > > > > >> > > > > > thanks
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> for
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > explaining.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > Agree
> > > > that
> > > > > >> we
> > > > > >> > > need
> > > > > >> > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> have a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > separate
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > "cache"
> > > > > >> terms
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> substitution.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > I'll
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > appreciate
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > sharing
> > > > > >> > pointers
> > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > any
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > relevant
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > IEPs
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > reasoning
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > suggested
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > change.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > Denis
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On
> > > Tue,
> > > > > Sep
> > > > > >> 8,
> > > > > >> > > 2020
> > > > > >> > > > > at
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> 6:01
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> PM
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Valentin
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> Hi
> > > > Denis,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I
> > > guess
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > wording
> > > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> IEP
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > little
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > bit
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > that
> > > > you
> > > > > >> > should
> > > > > >> > > > not
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> create
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > nested
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > POJOs,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > single
> > > > > POJO
> > > > > >> > that
> > > > > >> > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> mapped
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > particular
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> nested
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > POJOs
> > > > are
> > > > > >> not
> > > > > >> > > > > > supported.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > Alex,
> > > > is
> > > > > >> this
> > > > > >> > > > > correct?
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Please
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > let
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > me
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > know
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> As
> > > for
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > "cache"
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> term, I
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > agree
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > that
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > what
> > > we
> > > > > can
> > > > > >> > > > replace
> > > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> with.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > "Table"
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > tightly
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> SQL
> > > is
> > > > > >> > optional
> > > > > >> > > in
> > > > > >> > > > > our
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> case.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Do
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > you
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > want
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > create a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > discussion
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > about
> > > > > this?
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > -Val
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> On
> > > Tue,
> > > > > >> Sep 8,
> > > > > >> > > > 2020
> > > > > >> > > > > at
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 4:37 PM
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Denis
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > Val,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > I've
> > > > > >> checked
> > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > IEP
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> again
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > have a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > few
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > questions.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > Arbitrary
> > > > > >> > > nested
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> objects
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > collections
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > values.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > > > Nested
> > > > > >> > POJOs
> > > > > >> > > > > should
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> either
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > be
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > inlined
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > Could
> > > > > you
> > > > > >> > > > provide a
> > > > > >> > > > > > DDL
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> code
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > snippet
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > showing
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > supposed
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> > > work?
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > Also,
> > > > we
> > > > > >> keep
> > > > > >> > > > using
> > > > > >> > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> terms
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > "cache"
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> it
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > the
> > > > > right
> > > > > >> > time
> > > > > >> > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> discuss
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> an
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > alternate
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > name
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > too?
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> Personally,
> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > "table"
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > should
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > stay
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> considering
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > that
> > > > SQL
> > > > > >> is
> > > > > >> > one
> > > > > >> > > > of
> > > > > >> > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > primary
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > APIs
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > in
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > supported
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> > out-of-the-box.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> -
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > Denis
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> On
> > > > Mon,
> > > > > >> Sep
> > > > > >> > 7,
> > > > > >> > > > 2020
> > > > > >> > > > > > at
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 12:26
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > PM
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > > > Ivan,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > I
> > > > see
> > > > > >> your
> > > > > >> > > > > point. I
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> agree
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > that
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > with
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > automatic
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > > > > >> schema-last
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> territory.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > > > > >> Actually,
> > > > > >> > if
> > > > > >> > > we
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> support
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > automatic
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > evolution,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > > > > >> creating a
> > > > > >> > > > cache
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> without
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > schema
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > inferring
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > > > > insert.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> In
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > > > other
> > > > > >> > words,
> > > > > >> > > we
> > > > > >> > > > > can
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> have
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > both
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> "schema-last"
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > > > > Alexey,
> > > > > >> > what
> > > > > >> > > do
> > > > > >> > > > > you
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> think?
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > > -Val
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > On
> > > > > Mon,
> > > > > >> Sep
> > > > > >> > > 7,
> > > > > >> > > > > 2020
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> at
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 5:59
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > AM
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Alexey
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > > > Ivan,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > > > Thank
> > > > > >> > you,
> > > > > >> > > I
> > > > > >> > > > > got
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> your
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > concern
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > now.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > As
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > > > >> > > terminology,
> > > > > >> > > > I
> > > > > >> > > > > am
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > absolutely
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > fine
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > whatever
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > fits
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > > the
> > > > > >> > > approach
> > > > > >> > > > > > best.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Dynamic
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > or
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > evolving
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > make
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > > > >> > > corresponding
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> changes
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > IEP
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > once
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > settle
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > > пн,
> > > > > 7
> > > > > >> > сент.
> > > > > >> > > > > 2020
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> г. в
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 11:33,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Ivan
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi
> > > > > >> Val,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> Thank
> > > > > >> > you
> > > > > >> > > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> your
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > answer!
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > My
> > > > > >> > > > > > understanding
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > little
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > bit
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > different.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > evolution
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> > > definitely
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> should be
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > possible.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > But
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > see
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > main
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> schema
> > > > > >> > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> updated".
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> I
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > treat a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > common
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > schema-first.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > Schema
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > and
> > > > > >> > data
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> manipulation
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > operations
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > clearly
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > enables
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> > > interesting
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > capabilities,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > e.g.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > preventing
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> changes
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > by
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> > mistaken
> > > > > >> > > > data
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > operations,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > restricting
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> schema.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > Schema-first
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> means
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > that
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > schema
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > exists
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > stored
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > > data
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > compliant
> > > > > >> > > > > > with
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> it -
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > that's
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > A
> > > > > >> > > > schema-last
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> approach
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > mentioned
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > in
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> exists,
> > > > > >> > > but
> > > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > inferred
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > from
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > data.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> > proposing
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> approach?
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > And
> > > > > >> I
> > > > > >> > > would
> > > > > >> > > > > > like
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > say,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > that
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > my
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > main
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> about
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > terminology.
> > > > > >> > > > > > And
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> I
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > suppose
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > if
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > confuses
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> > confused
> > > > > >> > > as
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> well. My
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > feeling
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > closer
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > may
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> be
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> > evolving
> > > > > >> > > > > > schema".
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >>
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> > > 2020-09-07
> > > > > >> > > > > 0:47
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi
> > > > > >> > > Ivan,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I
> > > > > >> > don't
> > > > > >> > > > see
> > > > > >> > > > > > an
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> issue
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > with
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > that.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > exists
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > in
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >> > advance
> > > > > >> > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > all
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > stored
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > data
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > compliant
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > exactly
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > what
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > proposed.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> There
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > are
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > no
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > restrictions
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > > > >> schema.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >> -Val
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On
> > > > > >> > Sat,
> > > > > >> > > > Sep
> > > > > >> > > > > > 5,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 2020
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > at
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > 9:52
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > PM
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ivan
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > Alexey,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> I
> > > > > >> > am a
> > > > > >> > > > > > little
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> bit
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > confused
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > with
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > understanding
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > > > > conforms
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> to a
> > > > > >> > > > > survey
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> [1]
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> (see
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > part
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > X
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Semi
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Structured
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> > really
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > > > treat
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> a
> > > > > >> > > > "dynamic
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> schema"
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > approach
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > as a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > kind
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > "schema-first"?
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> [1]
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >>
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > 2020-09-02
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> 1:53
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > However,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> could
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > please
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> between
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > > > Ignite
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > ORM?
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > Is
> > > > > >> > > > > there
> > > > > >> > > > > > a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> use
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > case
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > (I
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > > > >> haven't
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > seen
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > one
> > > > > >> > > > so
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> far)?
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> If
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > so,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > what
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > side
> > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > support
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > this?
> > > > > >> > > > > In
> > > > > >> > > > > > my
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > > > > already
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> > have.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > Am
> > > > > >> > > I
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> missing
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > something?
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Good
> > > > > >> > > > > > point,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> yes,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > if
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > all
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > ORM
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > APIs
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > internally,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> then
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > they
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > can
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > easily
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > translate
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > into
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > an
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> INSERT/UPDATE
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > statement
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > that
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > lists
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> fields.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > > > > Luckily,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > our
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > Spring
> > > > > >> > > > > > Data
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > integration
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > based
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > APIs
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > needs
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> > to
> > > > > >> > > be
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> improved
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > once
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > supported.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > That
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > > > would
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > solve
> > > > > >> > > > a
> > > > > >> > > > > > ton
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> of
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > usability
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > issues.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> > I
> > > > > >> > > > would
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> revise
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > Ignite
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > > 3.0
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> dev
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > phase.
> > > > > >> > > > > > Can't
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> say
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > if
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > it's
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > used
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > lot
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > getting
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> > traction
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> for
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > sure.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > @Michael
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Pollind,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > I'll
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > loop
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > long
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> started
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > > > > working
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > on
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > Ignite
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> support
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> for
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Micornaut
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> > <
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > came
> > > > > >> > > > > > across
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> some
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > challenges.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Just
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > watch
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> discussion.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > That's
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > > what
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > coming
> > > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Ignite
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 3.0.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> > -
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > Denis
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> > On
> > > > > >> > > > Mon,
> > > > > >> > > > > > Aug
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> 31,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > 2020
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > at
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > 5:11
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > Hi
> > > > > >> > > > > Denis,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > Generally
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > speaking, I
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > believe
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > approach
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > > > >> natively
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > addresses
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > issue
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > if
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > duplicate
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > objects,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > because
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > schema
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> will be
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > created
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > cache,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > > > >> happens
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> now.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > Basically,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > schema
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > define
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > whether
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > primary
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > key
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > or
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > not,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > and
> > > > > >> > > > > which
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> fields
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > are
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > included
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > that
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > we
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> > would
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > have
> > > > > >> > > > > must
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> be
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > compliant
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > with
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > this,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > > work
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > with
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > data
> > > > > >> > > > as
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> with a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > set
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > of
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > records,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > However,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> could
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > please
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> between
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > > > Ignite
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > ORM?
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > Is
> > > > > >> > > > > there
> > > > > >> > > > > > a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> use
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > case
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > (I
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > > > >> haven't
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > seen
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > one
> > > > > >> > > > so
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> far)?
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> If
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > so,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > what
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > side
> > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > support
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > this?
> > > > > >> > > > > In
> > > > > >> > > > > > my
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > > > > already
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> > have.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > Am
> > > > > >> > > I
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> missing
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > something?
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > -Val
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > On
> > > > > >> > > > Mon,
> > > > > >> > > > > > Aug
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 31,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 2020
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > at
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > 2:08
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > Val,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > I
> > > > > >> > > > > would
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> propose
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > adding
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > another
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > point
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > motivations
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > list
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > > > which
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > related
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > ORM
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > frameworks
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > Hibernate,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > Micronaut
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > many
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> others.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> Presently,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > storage
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > engine
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requires
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> distinguish
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > > > > objects
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > from
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > value
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> ones
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> that
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > complicate
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > ORM
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> frameworks
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> (especially
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> if
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > key
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > object
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > comprises
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > More
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> on
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > > this
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> can
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > be
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > found
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> here:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > It
> > > > > >> > > > > will
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> be
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> nice
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > if
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > new
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > > work
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> with
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > single
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> entity
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > object
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > when
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > comes
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > need
> > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > split
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > entity
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> into
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > key
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > value.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Just
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > > > Ignite
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > 3.0
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > has
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > all
> > > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > essential
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > public
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > APIs
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > > > >> > > single-entity
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > based
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > approach.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > What
> > > > > >> > > > > do
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> you
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > think?
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > -
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > Denis
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > On
> > > > > >> > > > > Fri,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> Aug
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 28,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > 2020
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > at
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > 3:50
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > PM
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Kulichenko <
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> Igniters,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > One
> > > > > >> > > > > > of
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > big
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > changes
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proposed
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > > > > >> so-called
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> "schema-first
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > approach".
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > To
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > started
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> writing
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > the
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > IEP
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > for
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> this
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > change:
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > Please
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> take a
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > look
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > let
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > immediate
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> thoughts,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> suggestions,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > or
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > objections.
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > -Val
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> --
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> Best
> > > > > >> > > > > > regards,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> Ivan
> > > > > >> > > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Best
> > > > > >> > > > regards,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Ivan
> > > > > >> > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best
> > > > > regards,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan
> > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best
> > > > regards,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey
> > V.
> > > > > >> Mashenkov
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best
> > regards,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V.
> > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V.
> Mashenkov
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > --
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > --
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > --
> > > > > >> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > >> > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > --
> > > > > >> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > >> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > --
> > > > > >> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > --
> > > > > >> > Best regards,
> > > > > >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>]

>
> I never said that you can predict string size.

You suggest to use offsets use 1-2-4 bytes based on overall varlen section
size.
Actually, we can't predict varlen section size if a string column defined
before serializing strings.

Do you suggest use the smallest possible offset size if no columns of
string type are defined,
but fallback to 4-byte if a string column goes into play?

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 6:59 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <il...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello!
>
> I never said that you can predict string size. Strings are definitely
> varlen. You don't know string length when looking at object schema, I don't
> even see why char-to-byte mapping is relevant here.
>
> What do you think about the approach where offsets use 1-2-4 bytes based on
> overall varlen section size, which is known in advance as I assume?
>
> With compression, some optimizations may be possible since you can compress
> blocks of data and then concatenate these compressed fragments. So you can
> say that "I want 40-th byte of 3rd fragment" but it sounds like an overkill
> mostly.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Ilya Kasnacheev
>
>
> чт, 20 мая 2021 г. в 18:23, Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Hi Ilya,
> >
> > Not yet, we can't predict string size [1] as a character may be encoded
> in
> > 1-4 bytes.
> > So, we could either use a heuristic or serialize every string into an
> array
> > at first then assemble a row and copy the array into the row buffer.
> >
> > Good point, we can skip vartable for the first varlen field.
> > We have a similar ticket [2] for the case with a single varlen. I'll fix
> > the description to omit a first varlen offset.
> >
> > Agree, compression looks tricky and ineffective in this case.
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4385623/bytes-of-a-string-in-java/4385653
> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14746
> >
> > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 5:58 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello!
> > >
> > > How about:
> > >
> > > First, all fields for which we know their specific order and size go,
> > such
> > > as byte, short, int, long, boolean. This means that any short field
> will
> > > take just 2 bytes with no padding.
> > > Then, all var-len fields go, such as nested object, strings, etc.
> > >
> > > After that, we know total object size already, right?
> > > If size <= 256, then all offsets are 1 byte unsigned.
> > > If size < 65k, then all offsets are 2 byte.
> > > Else, all offsets are 4 byte.
> > >
> > > We can count offsets starting from the first byle after constant fields
> > > section and offsets section.
> > > For the first varlen field, the offset is always 0, so we may skip this
> > one
> > > and start with offset of the second var field.
> > >
> > > For compression it is trickier. I suggest not having any explicit
> support
> > > for compression right here, so that later on compression may use a
> > > different object layout to be more efficient.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > --
> > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > >
> > >
> > > ср, 19 мая 2021 г. в 16:43, Andrey Mashenkov <
> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > >:
> > >
> > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > >
> > > > I've create a ticket [1] for large row support.
> > > >
> > > > We use 2-bytes offsets for varlen fields that are supposed to be
> large
> > > > enough.
> > > > AFAIK, some users use multi-MB values and 64k per Row looks like a
> > strong
> > > > limitation.
> > > >
> > > > So, we have either to increase offset_size up to 4-bytes or use some
> > > > advanced mechanics for compression or adaptive offset_size.
> > > >
> > > > 1. Increasing offset size may add overhead for keys like next:
> > > > class Key {
> > > >    int id;
> > > >    String str; // Some short string code.
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > 2. Compression will require table to be decompressed on every varlen
> > > column
> > > > access, e.g. for comparison purposes while index scan.
> > > > Also, we may need to pre-calculate compressed table size to avoid
> > buffer
> > > > copying (shrinking or extending) during row assembling.
> > > >
> > > > 3. Adaptive offset_size implies row size estimation.
> > > > We already do to reduce the probability of buffer expanding, but we
> > need
> > > a
> > > > high margin for this purpose.
> > > > 'String' values size is a hard part as String character may be
> encoded
> > > into
> > > > 1-4 bytes depending on Charset.
> > > >
> > > > Usually, a user don't want to care about Column length limitation and
> > > chars
> > > > collation.
> > > > So, we can expect a Java default behavior will be used in most cases:
> > > > 'unlimited' string size with up to 4-bytes characters support.
> > > >
> > > > Possible strategies
> > > > 3.1 Introduce 'Collation' for string and validate all the chars on
> row
> > > > assembling and rely on the user limited column length.
> > > > Thus, we can use varlen limits (+ collation for strings) to estimate
> > row
> > > > size and pre-calculate offset_size to keep it within the schema.
> > > > 3.2 Introduce more row flags for different offset sizes (byte, short,
> > > int)
> > > > and calculate row size right before assembling for choosing
> appropriate
> > > > offset_size.
> > > > Heuristics for strings using collation is also applicable here and
> keep
> > > > algorithm complexity independent from the data length, but the schema
> > > only.
> > > >
> > > > I like an approach '3.2' because we already estimate row size.
> > > > Any thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14743
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 7:25 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > I've prepared PR [1] with Public Table API for final review.
> > > > >
> > > > > Main points
> > > > > There are 4 projection interfaces over Table for different
> use-cases
> > > > > (Plain record vs Key-Value and POJO vs Binary object) declaring
> > > > synchronous
> > > > > and asynchronous methods.
> > > > > Async method returns IgniteFuture as there is no consensus on
> > > > IgniteFuture
> > > > > vs JDK CompletableFuture yet.
> > > > > API implementation is incomplete, it just an example of how it
> could
> > be
> > > > > done and will be implemented in future tasks.
> > > > > Tuple/TupleAssembler renamed to Row/RowAssembler. Now Tuple is
> just a
> > > > > dictionary representing a subset of columns, while Row is a
> > > schema-aware
> > > > > object containing key and value columns respectively to the data
> > > layout.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:26 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > ptupitsyn@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> I see, thanks.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Let's discuss the return type - Future is not the one to use.
> > > > >> We should return CompletionStage, CompletableFuture, or introduce
> > our
> > > > own
> > > > >> interface.
> > > > >> We agreed on the last one (custom interface) for thin clients:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/IEP-51-Java-Thin-Client-Async-API-td48900.html
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I believe that for Ignite 3.0 we should have the following:
> > > > >> public interface IgniteFuture<T> extends Future<T>,
> > > CompletionStage<T> {
> > > > >>     // No-op.
> > > > >> }
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thoughts?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:16 AM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > >> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Pavel,
> > > > >> > There are 2 PR's for the ticket[1] with two different APIs
> > > suggested.
> > > > >> > Please, take a look at PR [2].
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14035
> > > > >> > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/69
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:11 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > Andrey, I can't find any async methods,
> > > > >> > > can you please check if the changes are pushed?
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 10:06 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > >> > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > Pavel, good point.
> > > > >> > > > Thanks. I've added async methods.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 2:29 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > >> ptupitsyn@apache.org>
> > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > Andrey,
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > What about corresponding async APIs, do we add them now or
> > > > later?
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 8:11 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > >> > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > Hi Igniters.
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > I've created a PR for Table access API [1].
> > > > >> > > > > > This is an initial version. So, any
> suggestions\objections
> > > are
> > > > >> > > > welcomed.
> > > > >> > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to write your comments and\or
> > > examples
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > > PR.
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > Ignite-api module contains API classes, e.g. TableView
> > > classes
> > > > >> as
> > > > >> > > > > > projections for a table for different purposes.
> > > > >> > > > > > Ignite-table contains dummy implementation and Example
> > class
> > > > >> > > explained
> > > > >> > > > > how
> > > > >> > > > > > it is supposed to be used.
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > Also, I'm still waiting for any feedback for Schema
> > > > >> configuration
> > > > >> > > > public
> > > > >> > > > > > API PR [2].
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/33
> > > > >> > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:05 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > >> > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > I've updated a PR regarding your feedback [1].
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:58 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > >> > > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> Folks,
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> I updated the IEP to contain the missing pieces;
> > > actually,
> > > > >> most
> > > > >> > of
> > > > >> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> questions here were covered by the text. Please let
> me
> > > know
> > > > >> if
> > > > >> > > there
> > > > >> > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> something still missing or unclear.
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> чт, 31 дек. 2020 г. в 12:48, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > >> > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >:
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> > Mikhail and Igniters,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> > Thanks for your comments. The questions are
> > reasonable,
> > > > >> > though I
> > > > >> > > > > think
> > > > >> > > > > > >> all
> > > > >> > > > > > >> > concerns are addressed by the IEP as Val
> mentioned. I
> > > > will
> > > > >> > > update
> > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> > document according to your questions in the
> following
> > > > week
> > > > >> or
> > > > >> > > so,
> > > > >> > > > so
> > > > >> > > > > > we
> > > > >> > > > > > >> can
> > > > >> > > > > > >> > have a constructive discussion further.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> > ср, 30 дек. 2020 г. в 11:45, Michael Cherkasov <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> > michael.cherkasov@gmail.com>:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Hi Val, Andrey,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> thank you for clarifying.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> I still have a few comments.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 1. one table == one schema. KV vs SQL:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Looks like all agreed that KV is just a special
> case
> > > of
> > > > a
> > > > >> > > regular
> > > > >> > > > > > table
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> with (blob,blob) schema.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> I worry about the case when the user starts from
> KV
> > > case
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> > > > later
> > > > >> > > > > > will
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> try
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to expand it and try to leverage SQL for the
> > existing
> > > KV
> > > > >> > table
> > > > >> > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> won't be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> able to do so and will require to reload data.
> which
> > > > isn't
> > > > >> > > > > convenient
> > > > >> > > > > > >> and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> sometimes not even possible. Is it possible to
> > > extract a
> > > > >> new
> > > > >> > > > field
> > > > >> > > > > > from
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> (blob, blob) schema and apply index on it?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 2. Could you please also list all ways of schema
> > > > >> definition
> > > > >> > in
> > > > >> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> IEP? It
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> significant change and I bet the main point of
> this
> > > IEP,
> > > > >> > > everyone
> > > > >> > > > > > hates
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> QueryEntities, they are difficult to manage and in
> > > > >> general,
> > > > >> > > it's
> > > > >> > > > > very
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> confusing to have a data model(schemas) and
> > > node/cluster
> > > > >> > > > > > configuration
> > > > >> > > > > > >> in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> one place.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> So there will be SchemaBuilder and SQL to define
> > > > schemas,
> > > > >> but
> > > > >> > > > > Andrey
> > > > >> > > > > > >> also
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> mentioned annotations.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> I personally against configuration via
> annotations,
> > > > while
> > > > >> > it's
> > > > >> > > > > > >> convenient
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> for development, it difficult to manage because
> > > > different
> > > > >> > > classes
> > > > >> > > > > can
> > > > >> > > > > > >> be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> deployed on different clients/servers nodes and it
> > can
> > > > >> lead
> > > > >> > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> unpredictable results.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 3. IEP doesn't mention field type changes, only
> > > drop/add
> > > > >> > > fields.
> > > > >> > > > > > Field
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> type
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> changes are extremely painful right now(if even
> > > > >> possible), so
> > > > >> > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > would
> > > > >> > > > > > >> be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> nice if some scenarios would be supported(like
> > > > >> int8->int16,
> > > > >> > or
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> int8->String).
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 4. got it, I thought IEP will have more details
> > about
> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> implementation.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> I've seen Andrey even sent benchmark results for a
> > new
> > > > >> > > > > serialization,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> will
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> ping him about this.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 5. Thanks for the clarification. I had a wrong
> > > > >> understanding
> > > > >> > of
> > > > >> > > > > > strick
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> mode.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> вт, 29 дек. 2020 г. в 19:32, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Hi Mike,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Thanks for providing your feedback. Please see
> my
> > > > >> comments
> > > > >> > > > below.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > I would also encourage you to go through the
> > IEP-54
> > > > [1]
> > > > >> -
> > > > >> > it
> > > > >> > > > has
> > > > >> > > > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> lot
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> of
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > detail on the topic.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > [1]
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > -Val
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:22 PM Michael
> > Cherkasov <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > michael.cherkasov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Hi all,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > I reviewed the mail thread and proposal page
> > and I
> > > > >> still
> > > > >> > > > don't
> > > > >> > > > > > >> fully
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > understand what is going to be changed, I
> would
> > > > really
> > > > >> > > > > appreciate
> > > > >> > > > > > >> it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> if
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > will answer a few questions:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 1. Are you going to leave only one schema per
> > > cache?
> > > > >> if
> > > > >> > so,
> > > > >> > > > > will
> > > > >> > > > > > be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> there
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > an option to have a table with arbitrary
> > > > objects(pure
> > > > >> KV
> > > > >> > > > case)?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > My opinion is that KV case should be natively
> > > > >> supported. I
> > > > >> > > > think
> > > > >> > > > > > this
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> still
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > needs to be thought over, my current view on
> this
> > is
> > > > >> that
> > > > >> > we
> > > > >> > > > > should
> > > > >> > > > > > >> have
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > separate APIs for KV and more generic storages.
> KV
> > > > >> storage
> > > > >> > > can
> > > > >> > > > be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > implemented as a "table" with two BLOB fields
> > where
> > > we
> > > > >> will
> > > > >> > > > store
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > serialized key-value pairs. That would imply
> > > > >> > deserialization
> > > > >> > > on
> > > > >> > > > > > read,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> but I
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > believe this is OK for KV use cases. I'm happy
> to
> > > hear
> > > > >> > other
> > > > >> > > > > ideas
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> though
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > :)
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0 have to
> > > > define
> > > > >> > > schema?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > SchemaBuilder
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > and SQL only? Is there an option to put the
> > schema
> > > > >> > > definition
> > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > configuration?(I really don't like this, I
> would
> > > > >> prefer
> > > > >> > to
> > > > >> > > > have
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > separate scripts to create schemas)
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > There will be no such thing as a static
> > > configuration
> > > > in
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > > > first
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> place.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Tables and schemas are created in runtime. Even
> if
> > > > there
> > > > >> > is a
> > > > >> > > > > file
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> provided
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > on node startup, this file is only applied in
> the
> > > > scope
> > > > >> of
> > > > >> > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> 'start'
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > operation. All configurations will be stored in
> a
> > > meta
> > > > >> > > storage
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> available to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > all nodes, as opposed to individual files.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 3. Is there a way to change field type? if
> yes,
> > > can
> > > > >> it be
> > > > >> > > > done
> > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > runtime?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Absolutely! IEP-54 has a whole section about
> > schema
> > > > >> > > evolution.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going to be
> > > > >> re-worked
> > > > >> > > too,
> > > > >> > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> there
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> any
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > IEP for this?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > BinaryMarshaller as a tool for arbitrary object
> > > > >> > serialization
> > > > >> > > > > will
> > > > >> > > > > > be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> gone,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > but we will reuse a lot of its concept to
> > implement
> > > an
> > > > >> > > internal
> > > > >> > > > > > tuple
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > serialization mechanism. IEP-54 has the
> > description
> > > of
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > > proposed
> > > > >> > > > > > >> data
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > format.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 5. I don't like automatic schema evaluation
> > when a
> > > > new
> > > > >> > > field
> > > > >> > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> added
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > automatically on record put, so is there a way
> > to
> > > > >> > prohibit
> > > > >> > > > this
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> behavior?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >  I think all schema changes should be done
> only
> > > > >> > explicitly
> > > > >> > > > > except
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> initial
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > schema creation.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > The way I see it is that we should have two
> modes:
> > > > >> > > schema-first
> > > > >> > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > schema-last. Schema-first means exactly what
> > you've
> > > > >> > > described -
> > > > >> > > > > > >> schemas
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> are
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > defined and updated explicitly by the user. In
> the
> > > > >> > > schema-last
> > > > >> > > > > > mode,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > the user does not deal with schemas, as they are
> > > > >> inferred
> > > > >> > > from
> > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> data
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > inserted into tables. We should definitely not
> mix
> > > > these
> > > > >> > > modes
> > > > >> > > > -
> > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> has
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > be one or another. And it probably makes sense
> to
> > > > >> discuss
> > > > >> > > which
> > > > >> > > > > > mode
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> should
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > be the default one.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Thanks,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Mike.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey Mashenkov
> <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Hi, Igniters.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > We all know that the current QueryEntity API
> > is
> > > > not
> > > > >> > > > > convenient
> > > > >> > > > > > >> and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > needs
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > be reworked.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema
> > > > >> configuration
> > > > >> > > > public
> > > > >> > > > > > API
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Ignite 3.0.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > New schema configuration uses Builder
> pattern,
> > > > which
> > > > >> > > looks
> > > > >> > > > > more
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > comfortable
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > to use.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > >> API
> > > > >> > > > > itself,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > draft
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and a test that demonstrates how the API
> could
> > > be
> > > > >> used.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Please note:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with
> > > static
> > > > >> > > factory
> > > > >> > > > > > >> methods.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * The implementation is decoupled and can be
> > > > easily
> > > > >> > > > extracted
> > > > >> > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > separate
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > module if we decide to do so.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are
> > > missed,
> > > > >> they
> > > > >> > > will
> > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> added
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > lately
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > in separate tickes.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Index configuration extends marker
> interface
> > > > that
> > > > >> > makes
> > > > >> > > > > > >> possible
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Hopfully, we could add a persistent
> > geo-indices
> > > > >> support
> > > > >> > > in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> future.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Supposedly, current table schema can be
> > > changed
> > > > >> via
> > > > >> > > > > > >> builder-like
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 'TableModificationBuilder'
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > details.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have
> > > > 'toBuilder()'
> > > > >> > > > > converter
> > > > >> > > > > > >> for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> that
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > purpose as it is a Schema Manager
> > responsibility
> > > > to
> > > > >> > > create
> > > > >> > > > > > >> mutator
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > objects
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > from the current schema,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > but implementing the Schema manager is out
> of
> > > > scope
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> > > > will
> > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > designed
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > within the next task.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Interfaces implementations are out of
> > scope. I
> > > > did
> > > > >> > not
> > > > >> > > > > intend
> > > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > merge
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > them right now, but for test/demostration
> > > > purposes.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > It is NOT the final version and some may be
> > > > changed
> > > > >> > > before
> > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> first
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > release of course.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed
> > with
> > > > >> this
> > > > >> > > > > approach
> > > > >> > > > > > or
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> some
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > issues should be resolved at first.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Any thoughts or objections?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Are interfaces good enough to be merged
> within
> > > the
> > > > >> > > current
> > > > >> > > > > > >> ticket?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> jury.gerzhedowich@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned
> > types:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 2. It requires adding new types to the
> > > internal
> > > > >> > > > > > representation,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > protocol,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > e.t.c.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 3. internal representation should be the
> > same
> > > as
> > > > >> we
> > > > >> > > keep
> > > > >> > > > > sign
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> types.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > So
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > will not requires more memory
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such
> > > types
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> > > > > platforms
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> which
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > not
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > support unsigned types. For example, a
> user
> > > > could
> > > > >> > > derive
> > > > >> > > > -6
> > > > >> > > > > > >> value
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits
> > > > perspective
> > > > >> > will
> > > > >> > > > be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> right). I
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > think
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such
> > > cases,
> > > > >> > > > especially
> > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> will be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > bad
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for unsigned long when we require returns
> > > > >> BigInteger
> > > > >> > > > type.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 5. Possible it requires some
> suffix/preffix
> > > for
> > > > >> new
> > > > >> > > types
> > > > >> > > > > > like
> > > > >> > > > > > >> a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > '250u' -
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value
> type.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive
> > > > >> comparison
> > > > >> > > > logic
> > > > >> > > > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > indexes
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for
> > > > >> expressions.
> > > > >> > I
> > > > >> > > > > think
> > > > >> > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> not
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > possible for the current H2 engine and
> > > probably
> > > > >> > > possible
> > > > >> > > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> new
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from
> > > anybody
> > > > >> who
> > > > >> > > > > involved
> > > > >> > > > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> this
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > part
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > WDYT?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey
> > > Goncharuk <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in
> > 3.0:
> > > > >> once
> > > > >> > we
> > > > >> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> actual
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > type
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > information, we can make proper runtime
> > > > >> adjustments
> > > > >> > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> conversions
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will
> > be
> > > > >> just a
> > > > >> > > bit
> > > > >> > > > > more
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > expensive.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel
> > > Tupitsyn <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality
> > comparisons
> > > > >> and so
> > > > >> > > on
> > > > >> > > > > are
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> broken
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I
> > > mentioned
> > > > >> this
> > > > >> > > > > > somewhere
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > above.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document
> > that
> > > > >> SQL is
> > > > >> > > not
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> supported
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > those
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > types,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > end of story.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey
> > > > >> Goncharuk
> > > > >> > <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable
> > > > >> request. I
> > > > >> > > > > thought
> > > > >> > > > > > >> about
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > this
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > when
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > I
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated
> to
> > > add
> > > > >> > these
> > > > >> > > > > types
> > > > >> > > > > > >> right
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > away.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite
> since
> > > the
> > > > >> > > > beginning
> > > > >> > > > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> .NET
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > C++
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > :)
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually
> > > works
> > > > as
> > > > >> > > > > expected,
> > > > >> > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> needs
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > some
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > checking (will be glad if my
> concerns
> > > are
> > > > >> > false):
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - It's true that equality check
> > works
> > > > >> > > properly,
> > > > >> > > > > but
> > > > >> > > > > > >> for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> SQL
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > range
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    queries it will break unless some
> > > > special
> > > > >> > care
> > > > >> > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> taken
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > side:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java
> (byte)255
> > > will
> > > > >> be
> > > > >> > > > > converted
> > > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> -1,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > which
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we
> > don't
> > > > have
> > > > >> > > > unsigned
> > > > >> > > > > > >> types
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > now,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > I
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > doubt
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    works.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - There is an obvious
> > cross-platform
> > > > data
> > > > >> > loss
> > > > >> > > > > when
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > "intuitive"
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > type
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8
> > > > >> corresponds to
> > > > >> > > > byte
> > > > >> > > > > > >> type in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > .NET,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > but
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will
> have
> > > to
> > > > >> use
> > > > >> > > short
> > > > >> > > > > > type
> > > > >> > > > > > >> in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Java,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    will also need to take care of
> the
> > > > range
> > > > >> > check
> > > > >> > > > > > during
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > serialization).
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > I
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    think we can even allow to try to
> > > > >> > deserialize
> > > > >> > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > value
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> into
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > arbitrary
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > type,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    but throw an exception if the
> range
> > > is
> > > > >> out
> > > > >> > of
> > > > >> > > > > > bounds.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's
> > comments.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP
> > > once
> > > > >> all
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > > > > details
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> are
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > settled
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > here?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey
> > > > >> Mashenkov
> > > > >> > <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63
> > > can't
> > > > >> be
> > > > >> > > > treated
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> correctly
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > now
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong
> > results)
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I think we could make "true"
> support
> > > for
> > > > >> > > unsigned
> > > > >> > > > > > >> types,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> but
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > they
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to
> > map
> > > > >> uint64
> > > > >> > to
> > > > >> > > > > Java
> > > > >> > > > > > >> long
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > primitive,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > but
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > BigInteger only.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > As for indices, we could read
> uint64
> > > to
> > > > >> Java
> > > > >> > > > long,
> > > > >> > > > > > but
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> treat
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > negative
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > values in a different way to
> > preserve
> > > > >> correct
> > > > >> > > > > > ordering.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > These limitations will affect only
> > > mixed
> > > > >> > > > > environments
> > > > >> > > > > > >> when
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > .Net
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Java
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > used to access the data.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Will this solution address your
> > > issues?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM
> > Pavel
> > > > >> > Tupitsyn
> > > > >> > > <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite
> > since
> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > beginning
> > > > >> > > > > > >> with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > .NET
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > C++
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > :)
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives
> as
> > > > cache
> > > > >> > keys
> > > > >> > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> values,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > as
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > fields
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > properties,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in
> WHERE
> > > x=y
> > > > >> > > clauses)
> > > > >> > > > -
> > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> works
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > transparently
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the users.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and
> treats
> > > > those
> > > > >> > > values
> > > > >> > > > > as
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > corresponding
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > signed
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks
> in
> > > > some
> > > > >> > cases
> > > > >> > > > > only
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> because
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > there
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > are
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > no
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very
> > > > simple
> > > > >> > > change
> > > > >> > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > protocol
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > -
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > add
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > type
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same
> way
> > as
> > > > >> signed
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> counterparts.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM
> > > Andrey
> > > > >> > > > Mashenkov
> > > > >> > > > > <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java
> > > > (bitwise
> > > > >> > > > > > >> representation
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > same)
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class
> > > with a
> > > > >> > uByte
> > > > >> > > > > field
> > > > >> > > > > > >> and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> map
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > 'uint8'
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > column.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value
> to
> > > > "250"
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> > > put
> > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> object
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > into a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > table,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to
> a
> > > > single
> > > > >> > byte
> > > > >> > > > > > 'int8'
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > column.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't
> > deserialize
> > > it
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> > > > > directly
> > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Java
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > object
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > field
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map
> > > uint8
> > > > >> type
> > > > >> > to
> > > > >> > > > > Java
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 'short'
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > type
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > because the one expected to
> see
> > > > "250"
> > > > >> as
> > > > >> > a
> > > > >> > > > > value
> > > > >> > > > > > >> which
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > doesn't
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > fit
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > signed type.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a
> > > > >> BigInteger
> > > > >> > > > field
> > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Java.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat
> > > column
> > > > >> value
> > > > >> > > as
> > > > >> > > > > Java
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 'byte'
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > as
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > is,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > because
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a
> > > > negative
> > > > >> > > value,
> > > > >> > > > so
> > > > >> > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> should
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > cast
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > short
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to
> > BigInteger
> > > > for
> > > > >> > > > uint64)
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will
> > > > require
> > > > >> a
> > > > >> > > > > different
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > comparator.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23
> PM
> > > > Pavel
> > > > >> > > > Tupitsyn
> > > > >> > > > > <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think range
> narrowing
> > > is a
> > > > >> good
> > > > >> > > > idea.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with
> > the
> > > > >> simple
> > > > >> > > > > > approach
> > > > >> > > > > > >> I
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > described?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01
> > PM
> > > > >> Andrey
> > > > >> > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > >> > > > > > >> <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with
> narrowing
> > > > range
> > > > >> > for
> > > > >> > > > > > unsigned
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> types
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > then
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > we
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > could
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > add a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned
> > types
> > > on
> > > > >> > schema
> > > > >> > > > > level
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> (like
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > nullability
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > flag)
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed
> > types
> > > > in
> > > > >> > > > storage.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a
> separate
> > > > >> storage
> > > > >> > > > > > >> type-system
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > binary
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > protocol
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most
> of
> > > > type
> > > > >> > will
> > > > >> > > > > match
> > > > >> > > > > > 1
> > > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 1
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > storage
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (native)
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will
> either
> > > > have
> > > > >> a
> > > > >> > > > > separate
> > > > >> > > > > > >> type
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> id
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > or
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > treat
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > serialized
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema
> > > (signed
> > > > >> or
> > > > >> > > > > unsigned
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> flag).
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can
> ever
> > > > >> foresee
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> consequences
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > of
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > using
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to
> > > unsigned
> > > > >> types
> > > > >> > > > > > perfectly
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> works
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > some
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > database,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite
> > > > >> successor
> > > > >> > > > > > confession
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > our
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > "native"
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that
> he
> > > can
> > > > >> use
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > > > power
> > > > >> > > > > > >> of
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Ignite
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Compute
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will
> > either
> > > > >> fail to
> > > > >> > > use
> > > > >> > > > > his
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > unsigned
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > data
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Java
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > due
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues
> due
> > to
> > > > >> > natural
> > > > >> > > > Java
> > > > >> > > > > > >> type
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > system
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > limitations
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to
> > > BigInteger.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively
> > > > supported
> > > > >> > types
> > > > >> > > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> possible
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > value
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > ranges
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be
> known.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is
> > what
> > > > >> > trade-off
> > > > >> > > > we
> > > > >> > > > > > >> found
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > acceptable:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > narrowing
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use
> > > types
> > > > >> of
> > > > >> > > wider
> > > > >> > > > > > >> range on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > systems
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > like
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Java.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
> 3:25
> > > PM
> > > > >> Igor
> > > > >> > > > > Sapego <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is
> > not
> > > so
> > > > >> hard
> > > > >> > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> implement
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > comparison
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it
> > does
> > > > not
> > > > >> > seem
> > > > >> > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > be a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> big
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > issue
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > from
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > my
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of
> > unsigned
> > > > >> types
> > > > >> > > from
> > > > >> > > > > > Java
> > > > >> > > > > > >> - I
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > think,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > if
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > user
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going
> > to
> > > > >> > interact
> > > > >> > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> from
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > he
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > knows
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > he
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use
> > from
> > > > >> > > platforms
> > > > >> > > > > > where
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> they
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > have
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > native
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > widely
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or
> .NET,
> > > > where
> > > > >> > > users
> > > > >> > > > > > >> currently
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > have
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > make a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > manual
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > casting
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using
> > > > unsigned
> > > > >> > > types
> > > > >> > > > > when
> > > > >> > > > > > >> they
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > use
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Ignite.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
> > 3:06
> > > > PM
> > > > >> > Pavel
> > > > >> > > > > > >> Tupitsyn <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much
> > > simpler:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support
> > for
> > > > >> those
> > > > >> > > > types
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > (basically,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > just
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > add
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > more
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long
> in
> > > > Java
> > > > >> > > > (bitwise
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > representation
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > same)
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have
> > > > >> unsigned
> > > > >> > > > > integers,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> so
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> we
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > can
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > simply
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > say
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value
> relative
> > > > >> > comparison
> > > > >> > > is
> > > > >> > > > > not
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > supported
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > SQL
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (equality
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020
> at
> > > 2:40
> > > > >> PM
> > > > >> > > > Andrey
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Mashenkov
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and
> > Igor.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to
> > > have
> > > > >> i8 or
> > > > >> > > > int8
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> instead of
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Integer.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming
> doesn't
> > > > >> address
> > > > >> > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > issue.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal
> types
> > > > >> should
> > > > >> > be
> > > > >> > > > > > portable
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > across
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > different
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > systems
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned
> type
> > > > >> support.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here
> is
> > > > that
> > > > >> > > > unsigned
> > > > >> > > > > > >> types
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > cover
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > different
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > ranges.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want
> > to
> > > > >> > > introduce a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> uLong.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look
> like a
> > > big
> > > > >> deal
> > > > >> > > to
> > > > >> > > > > add
> > > > >> > > > > > >> uLong
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > type
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > support
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > at
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > storage
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8
> > bytes
> > > > and
> > > > >> > then
> > > > >> > > > use
> > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> e.g.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > .Net
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > only.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could
> > support
> > > > it
> > > > >> in
> > > > >> > > e.g.
> > > > >> > > > > > Java?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind
> > Long
> > > > >> range
> > > > >> > is
> > > > >> > > > > about
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> (2^-63
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > ..
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 2^63)
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > range
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option
> is
> > > to
> > > > >> > > restrict
> > > > >> > > > > > range
> > > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> (0
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > ..
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > 2^63).
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > This
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no
> > conversion,
> > > > but
> > > > >> > > > doesn't
> > > > >> > > > > > look
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> like
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 'real'
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go
> > worse
> > > > >> when
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > > > user
> > > > >> > > > > > >> will
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> use
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > uByte,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > as
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > limitation
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally
> > > > unusable.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is
> > to
> > > > map
> > > > >> > > > unsigned
> > > > >> > > > > > >> types
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > type
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > wider
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for
> > > negative
> > > > >> > values.
> > > > >> > > > > E.g.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> uLong to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > BigInteger.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use
> > > primitive
> > > > >> Java
> > > > >> > > > type
> > > > >> > > > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Long
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > here.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > However,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > still
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store
> > uLong
> > > > in 8
> > > > >> > > bytes,
> > > > >> > > > > but
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> have a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > special
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > comparator
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to
> > avoid
> > > > >> > unwanted
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > deserialization.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020
> > at
> > > > >> 2:04 PM
> > > > >> > > > Pavel
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Tupitsyn
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get
> rid
> > > of
> > > > >> > "long,
> > > > >> > > > > short,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> byte"
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > protocol
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust
> > style,
> > > > >> which
> > > > >> > is
> > > > >> > > > > > concise
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > unambiguous:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16,
> > etc
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24,
> 2020
> > > at
> > > > >> 1:58
> > > > >> > PM
> > > > >> > > > > Igor
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Sapego <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally
> support
> > > > that.
> > > > >> > Also,
> > > > >> > > > if
> > > > >> > > > > we
> > > > >> > > > > > >> are
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > aiming
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger
> > > > >> > > platform-independance,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas
> we
> > > may
> > > > >> want
> > > > >> > to
> > > > >> > > > > > support
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > bit-notation
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (int32,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean
> a
> > > > >> different
> > > > >> > > > type
> > > > >> > > > > on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > different
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > platforms
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens
> > often
> > > > when
> > > > >> > > using
> > > > >> > > > > ODBC
> > > > >> > > > > > >> for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > example).
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24,
> > 2020
> > > > at
> > > > >> > 1:34
> > > > >> > > PM
> > > > >> > > > > > Pavel
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Tupitsyn
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we
> > should
> > > > >> support
> > > > >> > > > > > unsigned
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> data
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > types:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort,
> > > uInt,
> > > > >> > uLong
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not
> > have
> > > > >> them,
> > > > >> > > but
> > > > >> > > > > many
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> other
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > languages
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > do,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the
> > > growing
> > > > >> > number
> > > > >> > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > > thin
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > clients
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > this
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example,
> in
> > > > >> current
> > > > >> > > > > > Ignite.NET
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > implementation
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > we
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > store
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed
> > > > internally,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a
> > huge
> > > > >> pain
> > > > >> > > when
> > > > >> > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> comes
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > metadata,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > binary
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to
> > > > >> > deserialize
> > > > >> > > > int
> > > > >> > > > > as
> > > > >> > > > > > >> uint
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > when
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > you
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > have
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > class,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> objections?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov
> 24,
> > > 2020
> > > > >> at
> > > > >> > > 12:28
> > > > >> > > > > PM
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Andrey
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Mashenkov <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point.
> > Both
> > > > >> > > > serializers
> > > > >> > > > > > use
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > reflection
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we
> > will
> > > > >> allow
> > > > >> > > > users
> > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > configure
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > static
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > along
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode,
> > we
> > > > >> still
> > > > >> > > need
> > > > >> > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> validate
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > user
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > classes
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > client
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest
> > > schema
> > > > in
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > > grid
> > > > >> > > > > > >> and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > reflection
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can
> find a
> > > few
> > > > >> > > articles
> > > > >> > > > > on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > internet
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > how
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create
> a
> > > task
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> > > > > > supporting
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > GraalVM,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > maybe
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> with
> > > > >> GraalVM
> > > > >> > > will
> > > > >> > > > > > >> suggest a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > solution
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > or
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proper
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a
> > bit
> > > > >> later.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no
> > workaround
> > > > is
> > > > >> > > found,
> > > > >> > > > we
> > > > >> > > > > > >> could
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > allow
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > users
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > write
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > own
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer,
> > but
> > > I
> > > > >> don't
> > > > >> > > > think
> > > > >> > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > good
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > idea
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > expose
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to
> the
> > > > >> public.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov
> > 24,
> > > > >> 2020 at
> > > > >> > > > 2:55
> > > > >> > > > > AM
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Denis
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Magda <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > thanks
> > > > for
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > > > > update,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any
> of
> > > the
> > > > >> > > > serializers
> > > > >> > > > > > >> take
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> into
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > consideration
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > native-image-generation
> > > > >> > > > > > >> feature of
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > GraalVM?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the
> > > current
> > > > >> > binary
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> marshaller,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > we
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > can't
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > even
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > generate
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the
> code
> > > > using
> > > > >> > our
> > > > >> > > > thin
> > > > >> > > > > > >> client
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > APIs.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon,
> Nov
> > > 23,
> > > > >> 2020
> > > > >> > at
> > > > >> > > > > 4:39
> > > > >> > > > > > AM
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Andrey
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi
> > Igniters,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like
> > to
> > > > >> > continue
> > > > >> > > > > > >> discussion
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> of
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > IEP-54
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope
> > > everyone
> > > > >> who
> > > > >> > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> interested
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > had a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > chance
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > get
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal
> > > [1].
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please,
> do
> > > not
> > > > >> > > hesitate
> > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> ask
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > questions
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > share
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > prepared
> > > > a
> > > > >> > > > prototype
> > > > >> > > > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > serializer
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > [2]
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > data
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the
> > > > proposal.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > prototy,
> > > I
> > > > >> > > compared
> > > > >> > > > 2
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> approaches
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > (de)serialize
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> java
> > > > >> > > > > reflection/unsafe
> > > > >> > > > > > >> API
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > similar
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > one
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the
> > > second
> > > > >> one
> > > > >> > > > > > generates
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > serializer
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino
> > > library
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> compilation.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second
> one
> > > > shows
> > > > >> > > better
> > > > >> > > > > > >> results
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > benchmarks.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think
> we
> > > can
> > > > >> go
> > > > >> > > with
> > > > >> > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > as
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > default
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > serializer
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > reflection-based
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > implementation
> > > > >> as a
> > > > >> > > > > > fallback
> > > > >> > > > > > >> if
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > someone
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There
> are
> > a
> > > > >> number
> > > > >> > of
> > > > >> > > > > tasks
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> under
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > umbrella
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ticket
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> assignee.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm
> > > going
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> > > > create
> > > > >> > > > > > more
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > tickets
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > schema
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > manager
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > implementation,
> > > > >> but
> > > > >> > > > would
> > > > >> > > > > > >> like
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > clarify
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > some
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > details.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> thought
> > > > >> > > schemaManager
> > > > >> > > > > on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> each
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > node
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > should
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > held:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1.
> Local
> > > > >> mapping
> > > > >> > of
> > > > >> > > > > > "schema
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > version"
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > <-->
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > validated
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes
> > > pair.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2.
> > > > >> Cluster-wide
> > > > >> > > > schema
> > > > >> > > > > > >> changes
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > history.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the
> > > client
> > > > >> side.
> > > > >> > > > > Before
> > > > >> > > > > > >> any
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > key-value
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > operation
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > for a
> > > > >> given
> > > > >> > > > > > key-value
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> pair.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there
> > is
> > > no
> > > > >> > > > > > local-mapping
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> exists
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > given
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster
> > wide
> > > > >> schema
> > > > >> > > > has a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> more
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > recent
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > version
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> be
> > > > >> validated
> > > > >> > > > > against
> > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > latest
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > version
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> updated/actualized.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an
> > object
> > > > >> > doesn't
> > > > >> > > > fit
> > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > latest
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > schema
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > depends
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode:
> > either
> > > > >> fail
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> operation
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > ('strict'
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > mode)
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created
> > and
> > > a
> > > > >> new
> > > > >> > > > schema
> > > > >> > > > > > >> version
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > should
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > propagated
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the
> > > server
> > > > >> side
> > > > >> > we
> > > > >> > > > > > usually
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> have
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > no
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > key-value
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > classes
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As
> schema
> > > > change
> > > > >> > > > history
> > > > >> > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > available
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > tuple
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is
> > > possible
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> > > > upgrade
> > > > >> > > > > > any
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > received
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > tuple
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > last
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > desialization.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we
> > > could
> > > > >> allow
> > > > >> > > > nodes
> > > > >> > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> send
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > key-value
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > pairs
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they
> > didn't
> > > > >> > receive a
> > > > >> > > > > > schema
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> update
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > yet)
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > without
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > reverting
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by
> a
> > > node
> > > > >> with
> > > > >> > > > newer
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> classes.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex,
> Val,
> > > > Ivan
> > > > >> did
> > > > >> > > you
> > > > >> > > > > > mean
> > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > same?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu,
> > Sep
> > > > 17,
> > > > >> > 2020
> > > > >> > > at
> > > > >> > > > > > 9:21
> > > > >> > > > > > >> AM
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Ivan
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > do
> > > > not
> > > > >> > > ignore
> > > > >> > > > > > >> history.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> We
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > had
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > thread
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> > We
> > > > can
> > > > >> > > resume
> > > > >> > > > > it.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > 2020-09-10
> > > > >> 0:08
> > > > >> > > > > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Denis
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Magda
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val,
> > > makes
> > > > >> > sense,
> > > > >> > > > > > thanks
> > > > >> > > > > > >> for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > explaining.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Agree
> > > that
> > > > >> we
> > > > >> > > need
> > > > >> > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> have a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > separate
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > "cache"
> > > > >> terms
> > > > >> > > > > > >> substitution.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > I'll
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > appreciate
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > sharing
> > > > >> > pointers
> > > > >> > > to
> > > > >> > > > > any
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > relevant
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > IEPs
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > reasoning
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> suggested
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > change.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Denis
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On
> > Tue,
> > > > Sep
> > > > >> 8,
> > > > >> > > 2020
> > > > >> > > > > at
> > > > >> > > > > > >> 6:01
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> PM
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Valentin
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi
> > > Denis,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I
> > guess
> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > wording
> > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> IEP
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > little
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > bit
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> that
> > > you
> > > > >> > should
> > > > >> > > > not
> > > > >> > > > > > >> create
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > nested
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > POJOs,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > but
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > single
> > > > POJO
> > > > >> > that
> > > > >> > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> mapped
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > particular
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> POJOs
> > > are
> > > > >> not
> > > > >> > > > > > supported.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> Alex,
> > > is
> > > > >> this
> > > > >> > > > > correct?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Please
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > let
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > me
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > know
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > if
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > >> > > "cache"
> > > > >> > > > > > >> term, I
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > agree
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > that
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> what
> > we
> > > > can
> > > > >> > > > replace
> > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> with.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > "Table"
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > tightly
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL
> > is
> > > > >> > optional
> > > > >> > > in
> > > > >> > > > > our
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> case.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Do
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > you
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > want
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > create a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> discussion
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> about
> > > > this?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> -Val
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On
> > Tue,
> > > > >> Sep 8,
> > > > >> > > > 2020
> > > > >> > > > > at
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 4:37 PM
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Denis
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> Val,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> I've
> > > > >> checked
> > > > >> > > the
> > > > >> > > > > IEP
> > > > >> > > > > > >> again
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > have a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > few
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > questions.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > Arbitrary
> > > > >> > > nested
> > > > >> > > > > > >> objects
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > collections
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > values.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > Nested
> > > > >> > POJOs
> > > > >> > > > > should
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> either
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > inlined
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > into
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > Could
> > > > you
> > > > >> > > > provide a
> > > > >> > > > > > DDL
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> code
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > snippet
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > showing
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > supposed
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> > > work?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > Also,
> > > we
> > > > >> keep
> > > > >> > > > using
> > > > >> > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> terms
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > "cache"
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> the
> > > > right
> > > > >> > time
> > > > >> > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> discuss
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> an
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > alternate
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > name
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> too?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> Personally,
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > > > > "table"
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > should
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > stay
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> considering
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> that
> > > SQL
> > > > >> is
> > > > >> > one
> > > > >> > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > primary
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > APIs
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> supported
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > out-of-the-box.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > Denis
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On
> > > Mon,
> > > > >> Sep
> > > > >> > 7,
> > > > >> > > > 2020
> > > > >> > > > > > at
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 12:26
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > PM
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > Ivan,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> I
> > > see
> > > > >> your
> > > > >> > > > > point. I
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> agree
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > that
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > automatic
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> schema-last
> > > > >> > > > > > >> territory.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> Actually,
> > > > >> > if
> > > > >> > > we
> > > > >> > > > > > >> support
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > automatic
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > evolution,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> creating a
> > > > >> > > > cache
> > > > >> > > > > > >> without
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > schema
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > inferring
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > insert.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > other
> > > > >> > words,
> > > > >> > > we
> > > > >> > > > > can
> > > > >> > > > > > >> have
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > both
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > Alexey,
> > > > >> > what
> > > > >> > > do
> > > > >> > > > > you
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> think?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > -Val
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> On
> > > > Mon,
> > > > >> Sep
> > > > >> > > 7,
> > > > >> > > > > 2020
> > > > >> > > > > > >> at
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 5:59
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > AM
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Alexey
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > > Ivan,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > > Thank
> > > > >> > you,
> > > > >> > > I
> > > > >> > > > > got
> > > > >> > > > > > >> your
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > concern
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > now.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > As
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > > >> > > terminology,
> > > > >> > > > I
> > > > >> > > > > am
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > absolutely
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > fine
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> whatever
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> fits
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > the
> > > > >> > > approach
> > > > >> > > > > > best.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Dynamic
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > or
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > evolving
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> make
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > > >> > > corresponding
> > > > >> > > > > > >> changes
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > IEP
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > once
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > settle
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > пн,
> > > > 7
> > > > >> > сент.
> > > > >> > > > > 2020
> > > > >> > > > > > >> г. в
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 11:33,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Ivan
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > Hi
> > > > >> Val,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> Thank
> > > > >> > you
> > > > >> > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> your
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > answer!
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > My
> > > > >> > > > > > understanding
> > > > >> > > > > > >> is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > little
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > bit
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > different.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> evolution
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > > definitely
> > > > >> > > > > > >> should be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > possible.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > But
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > see
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > main
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> schema
> > > > >> > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> updated".
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> I
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > treat a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > common
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > schema-first.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > Schema
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > and
> > > > >> > data
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> manipulation
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > operations
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > are
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > clearly
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > enables
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > > interesting
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > capabilities,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > e.g.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > preventing
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > by
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > mistaken
> > > > >> > > > data
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > operations,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > restricting
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> schema.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > Schema-first
> > > > >> > > > > > >> means
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > that
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > schema
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > exists
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > stored
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > data
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > is
> > > > >> > > > compliant
> > > > >> > > > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> it -
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > that's
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > A
> > > > >> > > > schema-last
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> approach
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > mentioned
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> exists,
> > > > >> > > but
> > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > inferred
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > from
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > data.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > proposing
> > > > >> > > > > > >> approach?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > And
> > > > >> I
> > > > >> > > would
> > > > >> > > > > > like
> > > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > say,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > that
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > my
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > main
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> about
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > > > terminology.
> > > > >> > > > > > And
> > > > >> > > > > > >> I
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > suppose
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > if
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > confuses
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > confused
> > > > >> > > as
> > > > >> > > > > > >> well. My
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > feeling
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > closer
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > may
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > evolving
> > > > >> > > > > > schema".
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > [1]
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >>
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > > 2020-09-07
> > > > >> > > > > 0:47
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi
> > > > >> > > Ivan,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I
> > > > >> > don't
> > > > >> > > > see
> > > > >> > > > > > an
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> issue
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > that.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > exists
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >> > advance
> > > > >> > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > all
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > stored
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > data
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > compliant
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > exactly
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > what
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > proposed.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> There
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > are
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > no
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > restrictions
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > > >> schema.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >> -Val
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On
> > > > >> > Sat,
> > > > >> > > > Sep
> > > > >> > > > > > 5,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 2020
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > at
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > 9:52
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > PM
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ivan
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > > Alexey,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> I
> > > > >> > am a
> > > > >> > > > > > little
> > > > >> > > > > > >> bit
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > confused
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > understanding
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > conforms
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> to a
> > > > >> > > > > survey
> > > > >> > > > > > >> [1]
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> (see
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > part
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > X
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Semi
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Structured
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > really
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > treat
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> a
> > > > >> > > > "dynamic
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> schema"
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > approach
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > as a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > kind
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> "schema-first"?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> [1]
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >>
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > > > 2020-09-02
> > > > >> > > > > > >> 1:53
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > However,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> could
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > please
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > Ignite
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > ORM?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > Is
> > > > >> > > > > there
> > > > >> > > > > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> use
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > case
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > (I
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > > >> haven't
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > seen
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > one
> > > > >> > > > so
> > > > >> > > > > > >> far)?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> If
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > so,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > what
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> side
> > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > > support
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > this?
> > > > >> > > > > In
> > > > >> > > > > > my
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > already
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > have.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > Am
> > > > >> > > I
> > > > >> > > > > > >> missing
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > something?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Good
> > > > >> > > > > > point,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> yes,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > if
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > all
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > ORM
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> APIs
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > internally,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> then
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > they
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > can
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > easily
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > translate
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> into
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> an
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> INSERT/UPDATE
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > statement
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > that
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > lists
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > Luckily,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > our
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > Spring
> > > > >> > > > > > Data
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > integration
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > already
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > based
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > APIs
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > needs
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > to
> > > > >> > > be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> improved
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > once
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> supported.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> That
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > > would
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > solve
> > > > >> > > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > ton
> > > > >> > > > > > >> of
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > usability
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > issues.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > I
> > > > >> > > > would
> > > > >> > > > > > >> revise
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > Ignite
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > 3.0
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> dev
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > phase.
> > > > >> > > > > > Can't
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> say
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > if
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > it's
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > used
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > lot
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > getting
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > traction
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > sure.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > @Michael
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Pollind,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > I'll
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > loop
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > you
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > long
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > working
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > Ignite
> > > > >> > > > > > >> support
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Micornaut
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > >
> > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/
> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > came
> > > > >> > > > > > across
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> some
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > challenges.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Just
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > watch
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > That's
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > what
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > coming
> > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Ignite
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 3.0.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > -
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > Denis
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > On
> > > > >> > > > Mon,
> > > > >> > > > > > Aug
> > > > >> > > > > > >> 31,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > 2020
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > at
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > 5:11
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > Hi
> > > > >> > > > > Denis,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > Generally
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > speaking, I
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > believe
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> approach
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > > >> natively
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > addresses
> > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > issue
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > if
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > duplicate
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > objects,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > > because
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > schema
> > > > >> > > > > > >> will be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > created
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > cache,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > > >> happens
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> now.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > Basically,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > schema
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > define
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > whether
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> primary
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> key
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> or
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > not,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > and
> > > > >> > > > > which
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> fields
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > are
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > included
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> that
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> we
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > would
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > have
> > > > >> > > > > must
> > > > >> > > > > > >> be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > compliant
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > this,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > work
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > data
> > > > >> > > > as
> > > > >> > > > > > >> with a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > set
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > of
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > records,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > However,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> could
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > please
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > Ignite
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > ORM?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > Is
> > > > >> > > > > there
> > > > >> > > > > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> use
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > case
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > (I
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > > >> haven't
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > seen
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > one
> > > > >> > > > so
> > > > >> > > > > > >> far)?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> If
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > so,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > what
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> side
> > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > > support
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > this?
> > > > >> > > > > In
> > > > >> > > > > > my
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > already
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > have.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > Am
> > > > >> > > I
> > > > >> > > > > > >> missing
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > something?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > -Val
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > On
> > > > >> > > > Mon,
> > > > >> > > > > > Aug
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 31,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 2020
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > at
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > 2:08
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > Val,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > I
> > > > >> > > > > would
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> propose
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > adding
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > another
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > point
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> motivations
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > list
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > > which
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > related
> > > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > ORM
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > frameworks
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > Hibernate,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > > > Micronaut
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > many
> > > > >> > > > > > >> others.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> Presently,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > storage
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > engine
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requires
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > objects
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > from
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > value
> > > > >> > > > > > >> ones
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> that
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > complicate
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> ORM
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> frameworks
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> (especially
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> if
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > key
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > object
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > comprises
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > More
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > this
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> can
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > found
> > > > >> > > > > > >> here:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > It
> > > > >> > > > > will
> > > > >> > > > > > >> be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> nice
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > if
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > new
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > work
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > single
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> entity
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > object
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > when
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > comes
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> need
> > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > split
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > entity
> > > > >> > > > > > >> into
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > key
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > value.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Just
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > Ignite
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > 3.0
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > has
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > all
> > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > essential
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > public
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > APIs
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > > >> > > single-entity
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > based
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > approach.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > What
> > > > >> > > > > do
> > > > >> > > > > > >> you
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > think?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > -
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > Denis
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > On
> > > > >> > > > > Fri,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> Aug
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 28,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > 2020
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > at
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > 3:50
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > PM
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> Igniters,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > One
> > > > >> > > > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > big
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > changes
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proposed
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> so-called
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> "schema-first
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > approach".
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > To
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > started
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> writing
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > IEP
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> this
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > change:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > Please
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> take a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > look
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > let
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > me
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > immediate
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> thoughts,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> suggestions,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > or
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > objections.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > -Val
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> Best
> > > > >> > > > > > regards,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> Ivan
> > > > >> > > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > Best
> > > > >> > > > regards,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > Ivan
> > > > >> > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best
> > > > regards,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan
> > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best
> > > regards,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey
> V.
> > > > >> Mashenkov
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best
> regards,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V.
> > > > Mashenkov
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > --
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > --
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Best regards,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > --
> > > > >> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > >> > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > --
> > > > >> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > >> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > --
> > > > >> > > > Best regards,
> > > > >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > --
> > > > >> > Best regards,
> > > > >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >
>


-- 
Best regards,
Andrey V. Mashenkov

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Ilya Kasnacheev <il...@gmail.com>]

Hello!

I never said that you can predict string size. Strings are definitely
varlen. You don't know string length when looking at object schema, I don't
even see why char-to-byte mapping is relevant here.

What do you think about the approach where offsets use 1-2-4 bytes based on
overall varlen section size, which is known in advance as I assume?

With compression, some optimizations may be possible since you can compress
blocks of data and then concatenate these compressed fragments. So you can
say that "I want 40-th byte of 3rd fragment" but it sounds like an overkill
mostly.

Regards,
-- 
Ilya Kasnacheev


чт, 20 мая 2021 г. в 18:23, Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>:

> Hi Ilya,
>
> Not yet, we can't predict string size [1] as a character may be encoded in
> 1-4 bytes.
> So, we could either use a heuristic or serialize every string into an array
> at first then assemble a row and copy the array into the row buffer.
>
> Good point, we can skip vartable for the first varlen field.
> We have a similar ticket [2] for the case with a single varlen. I'll fix
> the description to omit a first varlen offset.
>
> Agree, compression looks tricky and ineffective in this case.
>
> [1]
>
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4385623/bytes-of-a-string-in-java/4385653
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14746
>
> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 5:58 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <ilya.kasnacheev@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Hello!
> >
> > How about:
> >
> > First, all fields for which we know their specific order and size go,
> such
> > as byte, short, int, long, boolean. This means that any short field will
> > take just 2 bytes with no padding.
> > Then, all var-len fields go, such as nested object, strings, etc.
> >
> > After that, we know total object size already, right?
> > If size <= 256, then all offsets are 1 byte unsigned.
> > If size < 65k, then all offsets are 2 byte.
> > Else, all offsets are 4 byte.
> >
> > We can count offsets starting from the first byle after constant fields
> > section and offsets section.
> > For the first varlen field, the offset is always 0, so we may skip this
> one
> > and start with offset of the second var field.
> >
> > For compression it is trickier. I suggest not having any explicit support
> > for compression right here, so that later on compression may use a
> > different object layout to be more efficient.
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Ilya Kasnacheev
> >
> >
> > ср, 19 мая 2021 г. в 16:43, Andrey Mashenkov <andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> >:
> >
> > > Hi Igniters,
> > >
> > > I've create a ticket [1] for large row support.
> > >
> > > We use 2-bytes offsets for varlen fields that are supposed to be large
> > > enough.
> > > AFAIK, some users use multi-MB values and 64k per Row looks like a
> strong
> > > limitation.
> > >
> > > So, we have either to increase offset_size up to 4-bytes or use some
> > > advanced mechanics for compression or adaptive offset_size.
> > >
> > > 1. Increasing offset size may add overhead for keys like next:
> > > class Key {
> > >    int id;
> > >    String str; // Some short string code.
> > > }
> > >
> > > 2. Compression will require table to be decompressed on every varlen
> > column
> > > access, e.g. for comparison purposes while index scan.
> > > Also, we may need to pre-calculate compressed table size to avoid
> buffer
> > > copying (shrinking or extending) during row assembling.
> > >
> > > 3. Adaptive offset_size implies row size estimation.
> > > We already do to reduce the probability of buffer expanding, but we
> need
> > a
> > > high margin for this purpose.
> > > 'String' values size is a hard part as String character may be encoded
> > into
> > > 1-4 bytes depending on Charset.
> > >
> > > Usually, a user don't want to care about Column length limitation and
> > chars
> > > collation.
> > > So, we can expect a Java default behavior will be used in most cases:
> > > 'unlimited' string size with up to 4-bytes characters support.
> > >
> > > Possible strategies
> > > 3.1 Introduce 'Collation' for string and validate all the chars on row
> > > assembling and rely on the user limited column length.
> > > Thus, we can use varlen limits (+ collation for strings) to estimate
> row
> > > size and pre-calculate offset_size to keep it within the schema.
> > > 3.2 Introduce more row flags for different offset sizes (byte, short,
> > int)
> > > and calculate row size right before assembling for choosing appropriate
> > > offset_size.
> > > Heuristics for strings using collation is also applicable here and keep
> > > algorithm complexity independent from the data length, but the schema
> > only.
> > >
> > > I like an approach '3.2' because we already estimate row size.
> > > Any thoughts?
> > >
> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14743
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 7:25 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Igniters,
> > > > I've prepared PR [1] with Public Table API for final review.
> > > >
> > > > Main points
> > > > There are 4 projection interfaces over Table for different use-cases
> > > > (Plain record vs Key-Value and POJO vs Binary object) declaring
> > > synchronous
> > > > and asynchronous methods.
> > > > Async method returns IgniteFuture as there is no consensus on
> > > IgniteFuture
> > > > vs JDK CompletableFuture yet.
> > > > API implementation is incomplete, it just an example of how it could
> be
> > > > done and will be implemented in future tasks.
> > > > Tuple/TupleAssembler renamed to Row/RowAssembler. Now Tuple is just a
> > > > dictionary representing a subset of columns, while Row is a
> > schema-aware
> > > > object containing key and value columns respectively to the data
> > layout.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:26 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> ptupitsyn@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I see, thanks.
> > > >>
> > > >> Let's discuss the return type - Future is not the one to use.
> > > >> We should return CompletionStage, CompletableFuture, or introduce
> our
> > > own
> > > >> interface.
> > > >> We agreed on the last one (custom interface) for thin clients:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/IEP-51-Java-Thin-Client-Async-API-td48900.html
> > > >>
> > > >> I believe that for Ignite 3.0 we should have the following:
> > > >> public interface IgniteFuture<T> extends Future<T>,
> > CompletionStage<T> {
> > > >>     // No-op.
> > > >> }
> > > >>
> > > >> Thoughts?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:16 AM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > >> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Pavel,
> > > >> > There are 2 PR's for the ticket[1] with two different APIs
> > suggested.
> > > >> > Please, take a look at PR [2].
> > > >> >
> > > >> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14035
> > > >> > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/69
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:11 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > >
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Andrey, I can't find any async methods,
> > > >> > > can you please check if the changes are pushed?
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 10:06 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > >> > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > Pavel, good point.
> > > >> > > > Thanks. I've added async methods.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 2:29 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > >> ptupitsyn@apache.org>
> > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > Andrey,
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > What about corresponding async APIs, do we add them now or
> > > later?
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 8:11 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > >> > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Hi Igniters.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > I've created a PR for Table access API [1].
> > > >> > > > > > This is an initial version. So, any suggestions\objections
> > are
> > > >> > > > welcomed.
> > > >> > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to write your comments and\or
> > examples
> > > >> to
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > PR.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Ignite-api module contains API classes, e.g. TableView
> > classes
> > > >> as
> > > >> > > > > > projections for a table for different purposes.
> > > >> > > > > > Ignite-table contains dummy implementation and Example
> class
> > > >> > > explained
> > > >> > > > > how
> > > >> > > > > > it is supposed to be used.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Also, I'm still waiting for any feedback for Schema
> > > >> configuration
> > > >> > > > public
> > > >> > > > > > API PR [2].
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/33
> > > >> > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:05 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > >> > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > I've updated a PR regarding your feedback [1].
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:58 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > >> > > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> Folks,
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> I updated the IEP to contain the missing pieces;
> > actually,
> > > >> most
> > > >> > of
> > > >> > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> questions here were covered by the text. Please let me
> > know
> > > >> if
> > > >> > > there
> > > >> > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> something still missing or unclear.
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> чт, 31 дек. 2020 г. в 12:48, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > >> > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > > >> > > > > > >> >:
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> > Mikhail and Igniters,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> > Thanks for your comments. The questions are
> reasonable,
> > > >> > though I
> > > >> > > > > think
> > > >> > > > > > >> all
> > > >> > > > > > >> > concerns are addressed by the IEP as Val mentioned. I
> > > will
> > > >> > > update
> > > >> > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> > document according to your questions in the following
> > > week
> > > >> or
> > > >> > > so,
> > > >> > > > so
> > > >> > > > > > we
> > > >> > > > > > >> can
> > > >> > > > > > >> > have a constructive discussion further.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> > ср, 30 дек. 2020 г. в 11:45, Michael Cherkasov <
> > > >> > > > > > >> > michael.cherkasov@gmail.com>:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Hi Val, Andrey,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> thank you for clarifying.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> I still have a few comments.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> 1. one table == one schema. KV vs SQL:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Looks like all agreed that KV is just a special case
> > of
> > > a
> > > >> > > regular
> > > >> > > > > > table
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> with (blob,blob) schema.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> I worry about the case when the user starts from KV
> > case
> > > >> and
> > > >> > > > later
> > > >> > > > > > will
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> try
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> to expand it and try to leverage SQL for the
> existing
> > KV
> > > >> > table
> > > >> > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> won't be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> able to do so and will require to reload data. which
> > > isn't
> > > >> > > > > convenient
> > > >> > > > > > >> and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> sometimes not even possible. Is it possible to
> > extract a
> > > >> new
> > > >> > > > field
> > > >> > > > > > from
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> (blob, blob) schema and apply index on it?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> 2. Could you please also list all ways of schema
> > > >> definition
> > > >> > in
> > > >> > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> IEP? It
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> significant change and I bet the main point of this
> > IEP,
> > > >> > > everyone
> > > >> > > > > > hates
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> QueryEntities, they are difficult to manage and in
> > > >> general,
> > > >> > > it's
> > > >> > > > > very
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> confusing to have a data model(schemas) and
> > node/cluster
> > > >> > > > > > configuration
> > > >> > > > > > >> in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> one place.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> So there will be SchemaBuilder and SQL to define
> > > schemas,
> > > >> but
> > > >> > > > > Andrey
> > > >> > > > > > >> also
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> mentioned annotations.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> I personally against configuration via annotations,
> > > while
> > > >> > it's
> > > >> > > > > > >> convenient
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> for development, it difficult to manage because
> > > different
> > > >> > > classes
> > > >> > > > > can
> > > >> > > > > > >> be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> deployed on different clients/servers nodes and it
> can
> > > >> lead
> > > >> > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> unpredictable results.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> 3. IEP doesn't mention field type changes, only
> > drop/add
> > > >> > > fields.
> > > >> > > > > > Field
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> type
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> changes are extremely painful right now(if even
> > > >> possible), so
> > > >> > > it
> > > >> > > > > > would
> > > >> > > > > > >> be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> nice if some scenarios would be supported(like
> > > >> int8->int16,
> > > >> > or
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> int8->String).
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> 4. got it, I thought IEP will have more details
> about
> > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> implementation.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> I've seen Andrey even sent benchmark results for a
> new
> > > >> > > > > serialization,
> > > >> > > > > > >> will
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> ping him about this.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> 5. Thanks for the clarification. I had a wrong
> > > >> understanding
> > > >> > of
> > > >> > > > > > strick
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> mode.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> вт, 29 дек. 2020 г. в 19:32, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Hi Mike,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Thanks for providing your feedback. Please see my
> > > >> comments
> > > >> > > > below.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > I would also encourage you to go through the
> IEP-54
> > > [1]
> > > >> -
> > > >> > it
> > > >> > > > has
> > > >> > > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > >> lot
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> of
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > detail on the topic.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > [1]
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > -Val
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:22 PM Michael
> Cherkasov <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > michael.cherkasov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Hi all,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > I reviewed the mail thread and proposal page
> and I
> > > >> still
> > > >> > > > don't
> > > >> > > > > > >> fully
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > understand what is going to be changed, I would
> > > really
> > > >> > > > > appreciate
> > > >> > > > > > >> it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> if
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > will answer a few questions:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 1. Are you going to leave only one schema per
> > cache?
> > > >> if
> > > >> > so,
> > > >> > > > > will
> > > >> > > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> there
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > an option to have a table with arbitrary
> > > objects(pure
> > > >> KV
> > > >> > > > case)?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > My opinion is that KV case should be natively
> > > >> supported. I
> > > >> > > > think
> > > >> > > > > > this
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> still
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > needs to be thought over, my current view on this
> is
> > > >> that
> > > >> > we
> > > >> > > > > should
> > > >> > > > > > >> have
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > separate APIs for KV and more generic storages. KV
> > > >> storage
> > > >> > > can
> > > >> > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > implemented as a "table" with two BLOB fields
> where
> > we
> > > >> will
> > > >> > > > store
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > serialized key-value pairs. That would imply
> > > >> > deserialization
> > > >> > > on
> > > >> > > > > > read,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> but I
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > believe this is OK for KV use cases. I'm happy to
> > hear
> > > >> > other
> > > >> > > > > ideas
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> though
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > :)
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0 have to
> > > define
> > > >> > > schema?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > SchemaBuilder
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > and SQL only? Is there an option to put the
> schema
> > > >> > > definition
> > > >> > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > configuration?(I really don't like this, I would
> > > >> prefer
> > > >> > to
> > > >> > > > have
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > separate scripts to create schemas)
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > There will be no such thing as a static
> > configuration
> > > in
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > > first
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> place.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Tables and schemas are created in runtime. Even if
> > > there
> > > >> > is a
> > > >> > > > > file
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> provided
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > on node startup, this file is only applied in the
> > > scope
> > > >> of
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> 'start'
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > operation. All configurations will be stored in a
> > meta
> > > >> > > storage
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> available to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > all nodes, as opposed to individual files.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 3. Is there a way to change field type? if yes,
> > can
> > > >> it be
> > > >> > > > done
> > > >> > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > runtime?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Absolutely! IEP-54 has a whole section about
> schema
> > > >> > > evolution.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going to be
> > > >> re-worked
> > > >> > > too,
> > > >> > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> there
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> any
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > IEP for this?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > BinaryMarshaller as a tool for arbitrary object
> > > >> > serialization
> > > >> > > > > will
> > > >> > > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> gone,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > but we will reuse a lot of its concept to
> implement
> > an
> > > >> > > internal
> > > >> > > > > > tuple
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > serialization mechanism. IEP-54 has the
> description
> > of
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > proposed
> > > >> > > > > > >> data
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > format.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 5. I don't like automatic schema evaluation
> when a
> > > new
> > > >> > > field
> > > >> > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> added
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > automatically on record put, so is there a way
> to
> > > >> > prohibit
> > > >> > > > this
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> behavior?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >  I think all schema changes should be done only
> > > >> > explicitly
> > > >> > > > > except
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> initial
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > schema creation.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > The way I see it is that we should have two modes:
> > > >> > > schema-first
> > > >> > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > schema-last. Schema-first means exactly what
> you've
> > > >> > > described -
> > > >> > > > > > >> schemas
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> are
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > defined and updated explicitly by the user. In the
> > > >> > > schema-last
> > > >> > > > > > mode,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > the user does not deal with schemas, as they are
> > > >> inferred
> > > >> > > from
> > > >> > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> data
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > inserted into tables. We should definitely not mix
> > > these
> > > >> > > modes
> > > >> > > > -
> > > >> > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> has
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > be one or another. And it probably makes sense to
> > > >> discuss
> > > >> > > which
> > > >> > > > > > mode
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> should
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > be the default one.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Thanks,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Mike.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Hi, Igniters.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > We all know that the current QueryEntity API
> is
> > > not
> > > >> > > > > convenient
> > > >> > > > > > >> and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > needs
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > be reworked.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema
> > > >> configuration
> > > >> > > > public
> > > >> > > > > > API
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Ignite 3.0.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > New schema configuration uses Builder pattern,
> > > which
> > > >> > > looks
> > > >> > > > > more
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > comfortable
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > to use.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package
> with
> > > the
> > > >> API
> > > >> > > > > itself,
> > > >> > > > > > >> and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > draft
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and a test that demonstrates how the API could
> > be
> > > >> used.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Please note:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with
> > static
> > > >> > > factory
> > > >> > > > > > >> methods.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * The implementation is decoupled and can be
> > > easily
> > > >> > > > extracted
> > > >> > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > separate
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > module if we decide to do so.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are
> > missed,
> > > >> they
> > > >> > > will
> > > >> > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > >> added
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > lately
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > in separate tickes.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Index configuration extends marker interface
> > > that
> > > >> > makes
> > > >> > > > > > >> possible
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Hopfully, we could add a persistent
> geo-indices
> > > >> support
> > > >> > > in
> > > >> > > > > > >> future.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Supposedly, current table schema can be
> > changed
> > > >> via
> > > >> > > > > > >> builder-like
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> 'TableModificationBuilder'
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > details.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have
> > > 'toBuilder()'
> > > >> > > > > converter
> > > >> > > > > > >> for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> that
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > purpose as it is a Schema Manager
> responsibility
> > > to
> > > >> > > create
> > > >> > > > > > >> mutator
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > objects
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > from the current schema,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > but implementing the Schema manager is out of
> > > scope
> > > >> and
> > > >> > > > will
> > > >> > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > designed
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > within the next task.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Interfaces implementations are out of
> scope. I
> > > did
> > > >> > not
> > > >> > > > > intend
> > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > merge
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > them right now, but for test/demostration
> > > purposes.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > It is NOT the final version and some may be
> > > changed
> > > >> > > before
> > > >> > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> first
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > release of course.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed
> with
> > > >> this
> > > >> > > > > approach
> > > >> > > > > > or
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> some
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > issues should be resolved at first.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Any thoughts or objections?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Are interfaces good enough to be merged within
> > the
> > > >> > > current
> > > >> > > > > > >> ticket?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <
> > > >> > > > > > >> jury.gerzhedowich@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned
> types:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 2. It requires adding new types to the
> > internal
> > > >> > > > > > representation,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > protocol,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > e.t.c.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 3. internal representation should be the
> same
> > as
> > > >> we
> > > >> > > keep
> > > >> > > > > sign
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> types.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > So
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > will not requires more memory
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such
> > types
> > > >> for
> > > >> > > > > platforms
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> which
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > not
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > support unsigned types. For example, a user
> > > could
> > > >> > > derive
> > > >> > > > -6
> > > >> > > > > > >> value
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits
> > > perspective
> > > >> > will
> > > >> > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> right). I
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > think
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such
> > cases,
> > > >> > > > especially
> > > >> > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> will be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > bad
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for unsigned long when we require returns
> > > >> BigInteger
> > > >> > > > type.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix
> > for
> > > >> new
> > > >> > > types
> > > >> > > > > > like
> > > >> > > > > > >> a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > '250u' -
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive
> > > >> comparison
> > > >> > > > logic
> > > >> > > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > indexes
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for
> > > >> expressions.
> > > >> > I
> > > >> > > > > think
> > > >> > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> not
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > possible for the current H2 engine and
> > probably
> > > >> > > possible
> > > >> > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> new
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from
> > anybody
> > > >> who
> > > >> > > > > involved
> > > >> > > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> this
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > part
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > WDYT?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey
> > Goncharuk <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in
> 3.0:
> > > >> once
> > > >> > we
> > > >> > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> actual
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > type
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > information, we can make proper runtime
> > > >> adjustments
> > > >> > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> conversions
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will
> be
> > > >> just a
> > > >> > > bit
> > > >> > > > > more
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > expensive.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel
> > Tupitsyn <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality
> comparisons
> > > >> and so
> > > >> > > on
> > > >> > > > > are
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> broken
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I
> > mentioned
> > > >> this
> > > >> > > > > > somewhere
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > above.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document
> that
> > > >> SQL is
> > > >> > > not
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> supported
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > on
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > those
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > types,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > end of story.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey
> > > >> Goncharuk
> > > >> > <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable
> > > >> request. I
> > > >> > > > > thought
> > > >> > > > > > >> about
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > this
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > when
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > I
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to
> > add
> > > >> > these
> > > >> > > > > types
> > > >> > > > > > >> right
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > away.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since
> > the
> > > >> > > > beginning
> > > >> > > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> .NET
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > C++
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > :)
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually
> > works
> > > as
> > > >> > > > > expected,
> > > >> > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> needs
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > some
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns
> > are
> > > >> > false):
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - It's true that equality check
> works
> > > >> > > properly,
> > > >> > > > > but
> > > >> > > > > > >> for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> SQL
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > range
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    queries it will break unless some
> > > special
> > > >> > care
> > > >> > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> taken
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> on
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > side:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255
> > will
> > > >> be
> > > >> > > > > converted
> > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> -1,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > which
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we
> don't
> > > have
> > > >> > > > unsigned
> > > >> > > > > > >> types
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > now,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > I
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > doubt
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    works.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - There is an obvious
> cross-platform
> > > data
> > > >> > loss
> > > >> > > > > when
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > "intuitive"
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > type
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8
> > > >> corresponds to
> > > >> > > > byte
> > > >> > > > > > >> type in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > .NET,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > but
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have
> > to
> > > >> use
> > > >> > > short
> > > >> > > > > > type
> > > >> > > > > > >> in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Java,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    will also need to take care of the
> > > range
> > > >> > check
> > > >> > > > > > during
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > serialization).
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > I
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    think we can even allow to try to
> > > >> > deserialize
> > > >> > > a
> > > >> > > > > > value
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> into
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > arbitrary
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > type,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    but throw an exception if the range
> > is
> > > >> out
> > > >> > of
> > > >> > > > > > bounds.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's
> comments.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP
> > once
> > > >> all
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > > > details
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> are
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > settled
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > here?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey
> > > >> Mashenkov
> > > >> > <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63
> > can't
> > > >> be
> > > >> > > > treated
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> correctly
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > now
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong
> results)
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I think we could make "true" support
> > for
> > > >> > > unsigned
> > > >> > > > > > >> types,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> but
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > they
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to
> map
> > > >> uint64
> > > >> > to
> > > >> > > > > Java
> > > >> > > > > > >> long
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > primitive,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > but
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > BigInteger only.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64
> > to
> > > >> Java
> > > >> > > > long,
> > > >> > > > > > but
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> treat
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > negative
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > values in a different way to
> preserve
> > > >> correct
> > > >> > > > > > ordering.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > These limitations will affect only
> > mixed
> > > >> > > > > environments
> > > >> > > > > > >> when
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > .Net
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Java
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > used to access the data.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Will this solution address your
> > issues?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM
> Pavel
> > > >> > Tupitsyn
> > > >> > > <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite
> since
> > > the
> > > >> > > > > beginning
> > > >> > > > > > >> with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > .NET
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > C++
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > :)
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as
> > > cache
> > > >> > keys
> > > >> > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> values,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > as
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > fields
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > properties,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE
> > x=y
> > > >> > > clauses)
> > > >> > > > -
> > > >> > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> works
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > transparently
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the users.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats
> > > those
> > > >> > > values
> > > >> > > > > as
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > corresponding
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > signed
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in
> > > some
> > > >> > cases
> > > >> > > > > only
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> because
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > there
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > are
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > no
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very
> > > simple
> > > >> > > change
> > > >> > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > protocol
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > -
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > add
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > type
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way
> as
> > > >> signed
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> counterparts.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM
> > Andrey
> > > >> > > > Mashenkov
> > > >> > > > > <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java
> > > (bitwise
> > > >> > > > > > >> representation
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > same)
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class
> > with a
> > > >> > uByte
> > > >> > > > > field
> > > >> > > > > > >> and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> map
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > 'uint8'
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > column.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to
> > > "250"
> > > >> and
> > > >> > > put
> > > >> > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> object
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > into a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > table,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a
> > > single
> > > >> > byte
> > > >> > > > > > 'int8'
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > column.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't
> deserialize
> > it
> > > >> to
> > > >> > > > > directly
> > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Java
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > object
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > field
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map
> > uint8
> > > >> type
> > > >> > to
> > > >> > > > > Java
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> 'short'
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > type
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > because the one expected to see
> > > "250"
> > > >> as
> > > >> > a
> > > >> > > > > value
> > > >> > > > > > >> which
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > doesn't
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > fit
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > signed type.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a
> > > >> BigInteger
> > > >> > > > field
> > > >> > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Java.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat
> > column
> > > >> value
> > > >> > > as
> > > >> > > > > Java
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> 'byte'
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > as
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > is,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > because
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a
> > > negative
> > > >> > > value,
> > > >> > > > so
> > > >> > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> should
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > cast
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > short
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to
> BigInteger
> > > for
> > > >> > > > uint64)
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will
> > > require
> > > >> a
> > > >> > > > > different
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > comparator.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM
> > > Pavel
> > > >> > > > Tupitsyn
> > > >> > > > > <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing
> > is a
> > > >> good
> > > >> > > > idea.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with
> the
> > > >> simple
> > > >> > > > > > approach
> > > >> > > > > > >> I
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > described?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01
> PM
> > > >> Andrey
> > > >> > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > >> > > > > > >> <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing
> > > range
> > > >> > for
> > > >> > > > > > unsigned
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> types
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > then
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > we
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > could
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > add a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned
> types
> > on
> > > >> > schema
> > > >> > > > > level
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> (like
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > nullability
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > flag)
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed
> types
> > > in
> > > >> > > > storage.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate
> > > >> storage
> > > >> > > > > > >> type-system
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > binary
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > protocol
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of
> > > type
> > > >> > will
> > > >> > > > > match
> > > >> > > > > > 1
> > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> 1
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > storage
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (native)
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either
> > > have
> > > >> a
> > > >> > > > > separate
> > > >> > > > > > >> type
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> id
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > or
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > treat
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > serialized
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema
> > (signed
> > > >> or
> > > >> > > > > unsigned
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> flag).
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever
> > > >> foresee
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> consequences
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > of
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > using
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to
> > unsigned
> > > >> types
> > > >> > > > > > perfectly
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> works
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > some
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > database,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite
> > > >> successor
> > > >> > > > > > confession
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > our
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > "native"
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he
> > can
> > > >> use
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > > power
> > > >> > > > > > >> of
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Compute
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > on
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will
> either
> > > >> fail to
> > > >> > > use
> > > >> > > > > his
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > unsigned
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > data
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > on
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Java
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > due
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due
> to
> > > >> > natural
> > > >> > > > Java
> > > >> > > > > > >> type
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > system
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > limitations
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to
> > BigInteger.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively
> > > supported
> > > >> > types
> > > >> > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> possible
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > value
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > ranges
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is
> what
> > > >> > trade-off
> > > >> > > > we
> > > >> > > > > > >> found
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > acceptable:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > narrowing
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use
> > types
> > > >> of
> > > >> > > wider
> > > >> > > > > > >> range on
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > systems
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > like
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Java.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25
> > PM
> > > >> Igor
> > > >> > > > > Sapego <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is
> not
> > so
> > > >> hard
> > > >> > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> implement
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > comparison
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it
> does
> > > not
> > > >> > seem
> > > >> > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > be a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> big
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > issue
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > from
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > my
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of
> unsigned
> > > >> types
> > > >> > > from
> > > >> > > > > > Java
> > > >> > > > > > >> - I
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > think,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > if
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > user
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going
> to
> > > >> > interact
> > > >> > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> from
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > he
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > knows
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > what
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > he
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use
> from
> > > >> > > platforms
> > > >> > > > > > where
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> they
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > have
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > native
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > support
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > widely
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET,
> > > where
> > > >> > > users
> > > >> > > > > > >> currently
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > have
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > make a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > manual
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > casting
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using
> > > unsigned
> > > >> > > types
> > > >> > > > > when
> > > >> > > > > > >> they
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > use
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Ignite.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
> 3:06
> > > PM
> > > >> > Pavel
> > > >> > > > > > >> Tupitsyn <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much
> > simpler:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support
> for
> > > >> those
> > > >> > > > types
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > (basically,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > just
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > add
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > more
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in
> > > Java
> > > >> > > > (bitwise
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > representation
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > same)
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have
> > > >> unsigned
> > > >> > > > > integers,
> > > >> > > > > > >> so
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> we
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > can
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > simply
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > say
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative
> > > >> > comparison
> > > >> > > is
> > > >> > > > > not
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > supported
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > SQL
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (equality
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
> > 2:40
> > > >> PM
> > > >> > > > Andrey
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Mashenkov
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and
> Igor.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to
> > have
> > > >> i8 or
> > > >> > > > int8
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> instead of
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Integer.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't
> > > >> address
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > > > > issue.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types
> > > >> should
> > > >> > be
> > > >> > > > > > portable
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > across
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > different
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > systems
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type
> > > >> support.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is
> > > that
> > > >> > > > unsigned
> > > >> > > > > > >> types
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > cover
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > different
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > ranges.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want
> to
> > > >> > > introduce a
> > > >> > > > > > >> uLong.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a
> > big
> > > >> deal
> > > >> > > to
> > > >> > > > > add
> > > >> > > > > > >> uLong
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > type
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > support
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > at
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > storage
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8
> bytes
> > > and
> > > >> > then
> > > >> > > > use
> > > >> > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> e.g.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > .Net
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > only.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could
> support
> > > it
> > > >> in
> > > >> > > e.g.
> > > >> > > > > > Java?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind
> Long
> > > >> range
> > > >> > is
> > > >> > > > > about
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> (2^-63
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > ..
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 2^63)
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > range
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is
> > to
> > > >> > > restrict
> > > >> > > > > > range
> > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> (0
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > ..
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > 2^63).
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > This
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no
> conversion,
> > > but
> > > >> > > > doesn't
> > > >> > > > > > look
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> like
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 'real'
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go
> worse
> > > >> when
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > > user
> > > >> > > > > > >> will
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> use
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > uByte,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > as
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > limitation
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally
> > > unusable.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is
> to
> > > map
> > > >> > > > unsigned
> > > >> > > > > > >> types
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> to a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > type
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > wider
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for
> > negative
> > > >> > values.
> > > >> > > > > E.g.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> uLong to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > BigInteger.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use
> > primitive
> > > >> Java
> > > >> > > > type
> > > >> > > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Long
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > here.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > However,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > still
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store
> uLong
> > > in 8
> > > >> > > bytes,
> > > >> > > > > but
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> have a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > special
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > comparator
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to
> avoid
> > > >> > unwanted
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > deserialization.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020
> at
> > > >> 2:04 PM
> > > >> > > > Pavel
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Tupitsyn
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid
> > of
> > > >> > "long,
> > > >> > > > > short,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> byte"
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > protocol
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust
> style,
> > > >> which
> > > >> > is
> > > >> > > > > > concise
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > unambiguous:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16,
> etc
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020
> > at
> > > >> 1:58
> > > >> > PM
> > > >> > > > > Igor
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Sapego <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support
> > > that.
> > > >> > Also,
> > > >> > > > if
> > > >> > > > > we
> > > >> > > > > > >> are
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > aiming
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger
> > > >> > > platform-independance,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we
> > may
> > > >> want
> > > >> > to
> > > >> > > > > > support
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > bit-notation
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (int32,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a
> > > >> different
> > > >> > > > type
> > > >> > > > > on
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > different
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > platforms
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens
> often
> > > when
> > > >> > > using
> > > >> > > > > ODBC
> > > >> > > > > > >> for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > example).
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24,
> 2020
> > > at
> > > >> > 1:34
> > > >> > > PM
> > > >> > > > > > Pavel
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Tupitsyn
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we
> should
> > > >> support
> > > >> > > > > > unsigned
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> data
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > types:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort,
> > uInt,
> > > >> > uLong
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not
> have
> > > >> them,
> > > >> > > but
> > > >> > > > > many
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> other
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > languages
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > do,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the
> > growing
> > > >> > number
> > > >> > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > thin
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > clients
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > this
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in
> > > >> current
> > > >> > > > > > Ignite.NET
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > implementation
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > we
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > store
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed
> > > internally,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a
> huge
> > > >> pain
> > > >> > > when
> > > >> > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> comes
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > metadata,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > binary
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to
> > > >> > deserialize
> > > >> > > > int
> > > >> > > > > as
> > > >> > > > > > >> uint
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > when
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > you
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > have
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > class,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24,
> > 2020
> > > >> at
> > > >> > > 12:28
> > > >> > > > > PM
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Andrey
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Mashenkov <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point.
> Both
> > > >> > > > serializers
> > > >> > > > > > use
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > reflection
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we
> will
> > > >> allow
> > > >> > > > users
> > > >> > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > configure
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > static
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > schema
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > along
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode,
> we
> > > >> still
> > > >> > > need
> > > >> > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> validate
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > user
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > classes
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > on
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > client
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest
> > schema
> > > in
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > grid
> > > >> > > > > > >> and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > reflection
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a
> > few
> > > >> > > articles
> > > >> > > > > on
> > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > internet
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > on
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > how
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a
> > task
> > > >> for
> > > >> > > > > > supporting
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > GraalVM,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > maybe
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with
> > > >> GraalVM
> > > >> > > will
> > > >> > > > > > >> suggest a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > solution
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > or
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proper
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a
> bit
> > > >> later.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no
> workaround
> > > is
> > > >> > > found,
> > > >> > > > we
> > > >> > > > > > >> could
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > allow
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > users
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > write
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > own
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer,
> but
> > I
> > > >> don't
> > > >> > > > think
> > > >> > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > good
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > idea
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > expose
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the
> > > >> public.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov
> 24,
> > > >> 2020 at
> > > >> > > > 2:55
> > > >> > > > > AM
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Denis
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Magda <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> thanks
> > > for
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > > > update,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of
> > the
> > > >> > > > serializers
> > > >> > > > > > >> take
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> into
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > consideration
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > native-image-generation
> > > >> > > > > > >> feature of
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > GraalVM?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the
> > current
> > > >> > binary
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> marshaller,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > we
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > can't
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > even
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > generate
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code
> > > using
> > > >> > our
> > > >> > > > thin
> > > >> > > > > > >> client
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > APIs.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov
> > 23,
> > > >> 2020
> > > >> > at
> > > >> > > > > 4:39
> > > >> > > > > > AM
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Andrey
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi
> Igniters,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like
> to
> > > >> > continue
> > > >> > > > > > >> discussion
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> of
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > IEP-54
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope
> > everyone
> > > >> who
> > > >> > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> interested
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > had a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > chance
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > get
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal
> > [1].
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do
> > not
> > > >> > > hesitate
> > > >> > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> ask
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > questions
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > share
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > prepared
> > > a
> > > >> > > > prototype
> > > >> > > > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > serializer
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > [2]
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > data
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the
> > > proposal.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> prototy,
> > I
> > > >> > > compared
> > > >> > > > 2
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> approaches
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > (de)serialize
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java
> > > >> > > > > reflection/unsafe
> > > >> > > > > > >> API
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > similar
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > one
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the
> > second
> > > >> one
> > > >> > > > > > generates
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > serializer
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > particular
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino
> > library
> > > >> for
> > > >> > > > > > >> compilation.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one
> > > shows
> > > >> > > better
> > > >> > > > > > >> results
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > benchmarks.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we
> > can
> > > >> go
> > > >> > > with
> > > >> > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > as
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > default
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > serializer
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> reflection-based
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > implementation
> > > >> as a
> > > >> > > > > > fallback
> > > >> > > > > > >> if
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > someone
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > issues
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are
> a
> > > >> number
> > > >> > of
> > > >> > > > > tasks
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> under
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > umbrella
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ticket
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm
> > going
> > > >> to
> > > >> > > > create
> > > >> > > > > > more
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > tickets
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > schema
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > manager
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > implementation,
> > > >> but
> > > >> > > > would
> > > >> > > > > > >> like
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > clarify
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > some
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > details.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought
> > > >> > > schemaManager
> > > >> > > > > on
> > > >> > > > > > >> each
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > node
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > should
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > held:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local
> > > >> mapping
> > > >> > of
> > > >> > > > > > "schema
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > version"
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > <-->
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > validated
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes
> > pair.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2.
> > > >> Cluster-wide
> > > >> > > > schema
> > > >> > > > > > >> changes
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > history.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the
> > client
> > > >> side.
> > > >> > > > > Before
> > > >> > > > > > >> any
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > key-value
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > operation
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> for a
> > > >> given
> > > >> > > > > > key-value
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> pair.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there
> is
> > no
> > > >> > > > > > local-mapping
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> exists
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > given
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster
> wide
> > > >> schema
> > > >> > > > has a
> > > >> > > > > > >> more
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > recent
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > version
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be
> > > >> validated
> > > >> > > > > against
> > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > latest
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > version
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> updated/actualized.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an
> object
> > > >> > doesn't
> > > >> > > > fit
> > > >> > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > latest
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > schema
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > depends
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode:
> either
> > > >> fail
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> operation
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > ('strict'
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > mode)
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > or
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created
> and
> > a
> > > >> new
> > > >> > > > schema
> > > >> > > > > > >> version
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > should
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > propagated
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the
> > server
> > > >> side
> > > >> > we
> > > >> > > > > > usually
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> have
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > no
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > key-value
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > classes
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema
> > > change
> > > >> > > > history
> > > >> > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > available
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > tuple
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > has
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is
> > possible
> > > >> to
> > > >> > > > upgrade
> > > >> > > > > > any
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > received
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > tuple
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > last
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > desialization.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we
> > could
> > > >> allow
> > > >> > > > nodes
> > > >> > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> send
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > key-value
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > pairs
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they
> didn't
> > > >> > receive a
> > > >> > > > > > schema
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> update
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > yet)
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > without
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > reverting
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a
> > node
> > > >> with
> > > >> > > > newer
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> classes.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val,
> > > Ivan
> > > >> did
> > > >> > > you
> > > >> > > > > > mean
> > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > same?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu,
> Sep
> > > 17,
> > > >> > 2020
> > > >> > > at
> > > >> > > > > > 9:21
> > > >> > > > > > >> AM
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Ivan
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> vololo100@gmail.com
> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> do
> > > not
> > > >> > > ignore
> > > >> > > > > > >> history.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> We
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > had
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > thread
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> We
> > > can
> > > >> > > resume
> > > >> > > > > it.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> 2020-09-10
> > > >> 0:08
> > > >> > > > > > GMT+03:00,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Denis
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Magda
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val,
> > makes
> > > >> > sense,
> > > >> > > > > > thanks
> > > >> > > > > > >> for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > explaining.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree
> > that
> > > >> we
> > > >> > > need
> > > >> > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> have a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > separate
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> "cache"
> > > >> terms
> > > >> > > > > > >> substitution.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > I'll
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > appreciate
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > if
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> sharing
> > > >> > pointers
> > > >> > > to
> > > >> > > > > any
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > relevant
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > IEPs
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > reasoning
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> change.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On
> Tue,
> > > Sep
> > > >> 8,
> > > >> > > 2020
> > > >> > > > > at
> > > >> > > > > > >> 6:01
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> PM
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Valentin
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi
> > Denis,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I
> guess
> > > the
> > > >> > > > wording
> > > >> > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> IEP
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > little
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > bit
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that
> > you
> > > >> > should
> > > >> > > > not
> > > >> > > > > > >> create
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > nested
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > POJOs,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > but
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> single
> > > POJO
> > > >> > that
> > > >> > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> mapped
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > particular
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs
> > are
> > > >> not
> > > >> > > > > > supported.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex,
> > is
> > > >> this
> > > >> > > > > correct?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Please
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > let
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > me
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > know
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > if
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As
> for
> > > the
> > > >> > > "cache"
> > > >> > > > > > >> term, I
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > agree
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > that
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what
> we
> > > can
> > > >> > > > replace
> > > >> > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> with.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > "Table"
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > tightly
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL
> is
> > > >> > optional
> > > >> > > in
> > > >> > > > > our
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> case.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Do
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > you
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > want
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > create a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about
> > > this?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On
> Tue,
> > > >> Sep 8,
> > > >> > > > 2020
> > > >> > > > > at
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> 4:37 PM
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Denis
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've
> > > >> checked
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > > > IEP
> > > >> > > > > > >> again
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > have a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > few
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > questions.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > Arbitrary
> > > >> > > nested
> > > >> > > > > > >> objects
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > collections
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > are
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > values.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > Nested
> > > >> > POJOs
> > > >> > > > > should
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> either
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > inlined
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > into
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> Could
> > > you
> > > >> > > > provide a
> > > >> > > > > > DDL
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> code
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > snippet
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > showing
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > supposed
> > > >> to
> > > >> > > work?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> Also,
> > we
> > > >> keep
> > > >> > > > using
> > > >> > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> terms
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > "cache"
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > right
> > > >> > time
> > > >> > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> discuss
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> an
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > alternate
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > name
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> Personally,
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > > > "table"
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > should
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > stay
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> considering
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > SQL
> > > >> is
> > > >> > one
> > > >> > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > primary
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > APIs
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > out-of-the-box.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> Denis
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On
> > Mon,
> > > >> Sep
> > > >> > 7,
> > > >> > > > 2020
> > > >> > > > > > at
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> 12:26
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > PM
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > Ivan,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I
> > see
> > > >> your
> > > >> > > > > point. I
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> agree
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > that
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > automatic
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> schema-last
> > > >> > > > > > >> territory.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> Actually,
> > > >> > if
> > > >> > > we
> > > >> > > > > > >> support
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > automatic
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > evolution,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> creating a
> > > >> > > > cache
> > > >> > > > > > >> without
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > schema
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > inferring
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > insert.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > other
> > > >> > words,
> > > >> > > we
> > > >> > > > > can
> > > >> > > > > > >> have
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > both
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > Alexey,
> > > >> > what
> > > >> > > do
> > > >> > > > > you
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> think?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> -Val
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On
> > > Mon,
> > > >> Sep
> > > >> > > 7,
> > > >> > > > > 2020
> > > >> > > > > > >> at
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> 5:59
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > AM
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Alexey
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > Ivan,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > Thank
> > > >> > you,
> > > >> > > I
> > > >> > > > > got
> > > >> > > > > > >> your
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > concern
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > now.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > As
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> > > terminology,
> > > >> > > > I
> > > >> > > > > am
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > absolutely
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > fine
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > the
> > > >> > > approach
> > > >> > > > > > best.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Dynamic
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > or
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > evolving
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> > > corresponding
> > > >> > > > > > >> changes
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > IEP
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > once
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > we
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > settle
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > пн,
> > > 7
> > > >> > сент.
> > > >> > > > > 2020
> > > >> > > > > > >> г. в
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 11:33,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Ivan
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> vololo100@gmail.com
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > Hi
> > > >> Val,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> Thank
> > > >> > you
> > > >> > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> your
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > answer!
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > My
> > > >> > > > > > understanding
> > > >> > > > > > >> is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > little
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > bit
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > different.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > > definitely
> > > >> > > > > > >> should be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > possible.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > But
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > see
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > main
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> schema
> > > >> > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> updated".
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> I
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > treat a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > common
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> schema-first.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> Schema
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > and
> > > >> > data
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> manipulation
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > operations
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > are
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > clearly
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > enables
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > > interesting
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > capabilities,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > e.g.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > preventing
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > by
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > mistaken
> > > >> > > > data
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > operations,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > restricting
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> schema.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >
> > > >> > > > > Schema-first
> > > >> > > > > > >> means
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > that
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > schema
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > exists
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> stored
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > data
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > is
> > > >> > > > compliant
> > > >> > > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> it -
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > that's
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > exactly
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > A
> > > >> > > > schema-last
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> approach
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > mentioned
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > also
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> exists,
> > > >> > > but
> > > >> > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > inferred
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > from
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > data.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > proposing
> > > >> > > > > > >> approach?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > And
> > > >> I
> > > >> > > would
> > > >> > > > > > like
> > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > say,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > that
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > my
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > main
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> about
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > > > terminology.
> > > >> > > > > > And
> > > >> > > > > > >> I
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > suppose
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > if
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > confuses
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > confused
> > > >> > > as
> > > >> > > > > > >> well. My
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > feeling
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > closer
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > may
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > evolving
> > > >> > > > > > schema".
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > [1]
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >>
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > > 2020-09-07
> > > >> > > > > 0:47
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > GMT+03:00,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >
> > > Hi
> > > >> > > Ivan,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >
> > > I
> > > >> > don't
> > > >> > > > see
> > > >> > > > > > an
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> issue
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > that.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> exists
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >
> > > >> > advance
> > > >> > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > all
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > stored
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > data
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > compliant
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > exactly
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > what
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >
> > > is
> > > >> > > > > proposed.
> > > >> > > > > > >> There
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > are
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > no
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > restrictions
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> schema.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >
> > > >> -Val
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >
> > > On
> > > >> > Sat,
> > > >> > > > Sep
> > > >> > > > > > 5,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> 2020
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > at
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > 9:52
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > PM
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ivan
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > > Alexey,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> I
> > > >> > am a
> > > >> > > > > > little
> > > >> > > > > > >> bit
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > confused
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > understanding
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > conforms
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> to a
> > > >> > > > > survey
> > > >> > > > > > >> [1]
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> (see
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > part
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > X
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Semi
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Structured
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > really
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > treat
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> a
> > > >> > > > "dynamic
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> schema"
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > approach
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > as a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > kind
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> [1]
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >>
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > > > 2020-09-02
> > > >> > > > > > >> 1:53
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > GMT+03:00,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Denis
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > dmagda@apache.org
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > However,
> > > >> > > > > > >> could
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > please
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > ORM?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > Is
> > > >> > > > > there
> > > >> > > > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > >> use
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > case
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > (I
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> haven't
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > seen
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > one
> > > >> > > > so
> > > >> > > > > > >> far)?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> If
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > so,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > what
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side
> > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > > support
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > this?
> > > >> > > > > In
> > > >> > > > > > my
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > already
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > have.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > Am
> > > >> > > I
> > > >> > > > > > >> missing
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > something?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Good
> > > >> > > > > > point,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> yes,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > if
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > all
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > ORM
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > internally,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> then
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > they
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > can
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > easily
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > translate
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> INSERT/UPDATE
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > statement
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > that
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > lists
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > Luckily,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > our
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Spring
> > > >> > > > > > Data
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > integration
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > already
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > based
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > APIs
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > needs
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > to
> > > >> > > be
> > > >> > > > > > >> improved
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > once
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > would
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > solve
> > > >> > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > ton
> > > >> > > > > > >> of
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > usability
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > issues.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > I
> > > >> > > > would
> > > >> > > > > > >> revise
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Hibernate
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > 3.0
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> dev
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > phase.
> > > >> > > > > > Can't
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> say
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > if
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > it's
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > used
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > lot
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > > getting
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > traction
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > sure.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > > @Michael
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Pollind,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > I'll
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > loop
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > you
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > long
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > working
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > on
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > >> support
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Micornaut
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Data
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > >
> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/
> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > came
> > > >> > > > > > across
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> some
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > challenges.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Just
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > watch
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > That's
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> what
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > coming
> > > >> > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 3.0.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > -
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Denis
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > On
> > > >> > > > Mon,
> > > >> > > > > > Aug
> > > >> > > > > > >> 31,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > 2020
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > at
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > 5:11
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > Hi
> > > >> > > > > Denis,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > Generally
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > speaking, I
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > believe
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> natively
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > addresses
> > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > issue
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > if
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > duplicate
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > objects,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > > because
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > schema
> > > >> > > > > > >> will be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > created
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > cache,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> happens
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> now.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > Basically,
> > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > schema
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > define
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > whether
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > not,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > and
> > > >> > > > > which
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> fields
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > are
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > included
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > would
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > have
> > > >> > > > > must
> > > >> > > > > > >> be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > compliant
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > this,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> work
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > data
> > > >> > > > as
> > > >> > > > > > >> with a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > set
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > of
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > records,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > However,
> > > >> > > > > > >> could
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > please
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > ORM?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > Is
> > > >> > > > > there
> > > >> > > > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > >> use
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > case
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > (I
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> haven't
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > seen
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > one
> > > >> > > > so
> > > >> > > > > > >> far)?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> If
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > so,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > what
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side
> > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > > support
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > this?
> > > >> > > > > In
> > > >> > > > > > my
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > already
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > have.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > Am
> > > >> > > I
> > > >> > > > > > >> missing
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > something?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > -Val
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > On
> > > >> > > > Mon,
> > > >> > > > > > Aug
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> 31,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 2020
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > at
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > 2:08
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > Val,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > I
> > > >> > > > > would
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> propose
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > adding
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > another
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > point
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > list
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > which
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > related
> > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > ORM
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > frameworks
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > Hibernate,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > > > Micronaut
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > many
> > > >> > > > > > >> others.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> Presently,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > storage
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > engine
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requires
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > objects
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > from
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > value
> > > >> > > > > > >> ones
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> that
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > complicate
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> frameworks
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> (especially
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> if
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > key
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > object
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > comprises
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > More
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > this
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> can
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > found
> > > >> > > > > > >> here:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > It
> > > >> > > > > will
> > > >> > > > > > >> be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> nice
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > if
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > new
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > work
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > single
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> entity
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > object
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > when
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > comes
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need
> > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > split
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > entity
> > > >> > > > > > >> into
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > key
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > value.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Just
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > 3.0
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > has
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > all
> > > >> > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > essential
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > public
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > APIs
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> > > single-entity
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > based
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > approach.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > What
> > > >> > > > > do
> > > >> > > > > > >> you
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > think?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > -
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > Denis
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > On
> > > >> > > > > Fri,
> > > >> > > > > > >> Aug
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> 28,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > 2020
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > at
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > 3:50
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > PM
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> Igniters,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > One
> > > >> > > > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > big
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > changes
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proposed
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> so-called
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> "schema-first
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > approach".
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > To
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > add
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > started
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> writing
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > IEP
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> this
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > change:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Please
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> take a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > look
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > let
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > me
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > immediate
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> thoughts,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> suggestions,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > or
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > objections.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > -Val
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> Best
> > > >> > > > > > regards,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> Ivan
> > > >> > > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > --
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > Best
> > > >> > > > regards,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > Ivan
> > > >> > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best
> > > regards,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan
> > > Pavlukhin
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best
> > regards,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V.
> > > >> Mashenkov
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V.
> > > Mashenkov
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > --
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Best regards,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > >> > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > >> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > --
> > > >> > > > Best regards,
> > > >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > --
> > > >> > Best regards,
> > > >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>]

Hi Ilya,

Not yet, we can't predict string size [1] as a character may be encoded in
1-4 bytes.
So, we could either use a heuristic or serialize every string into an array
at first then assemble a row and copy the array into the row buffer.

Good point, we can skip vartable for the first varlen field.
We have a similar ticket [2] for the case with a single varlen. I'll fix
the description to omit a first varlen offset.

Agree, compression looks tricky and ineffective in this case.

[1]
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4385623/bytes-of-a-string-in-java/4385653
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14746

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 5:58 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <il...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello!
>
> How about:
>
> First, all fields for which we know their specific order and size go, such
> as byte, short, int, long, boolean. This means that any short field will
> take just 2 bytes with no padding.
> Then, all var-len fields go, such as nested object, strings, etc.
>
> After that, we know total object size already, right?
> If size <= 256, then all offsets are 1 byte unsigned.
> If size < 65k, then all offsets are 2 byte.
> Else, all offsets are 4 byte.
>
> We can count offsets starting from the first byle after constant fields
> section and offsets section.
> For the first varlen field, the offset is always 0, so we may skip this one
> and start with offset of the second var field.
>
> For compression it is trickier. I suggest not having any explicit support
> for compression right here, so that later on compression may use a
> different object layout to be more efficient.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Ilya Kasnacheev
>
>
> ср, 19 мая 2021 г. в 16:43, Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Hi Igniters,
> >
> > I've create a ticket [1] for large row support.
> >
> > We use 2-bytes offsets for varlen fields that are supposed to be large
> > enough.
> > AFAIK, some users use multi-MB values and 64k per Row looks like a strong
> > limitation.
> >
> > So, we have either to increase offset_size up to 4-bytes or use some
> > advanced mechanics for compression or adaptive offset_size.
> >
> > 1. Increasing offset size may add overhead for keys like next:
> > class Key {
> >    int id;
> >    String str; // Some short string code.
> > }
> >
> > 2. Compression will require table to be decompressed on every varlen
> column
> > access, e.g. for comparison purposes while index scan.
> > Also, we may need to pre-calculate compressed table size to avoid buffer
> > copying (shrinking or extending) during row assembling.
> >
> > 3. Adaptive offset_size implies row size estimation.
> > We already do to reduce the probability of buffer expanding, but we need
> a
> > high margin for this purpose.
> > 'String' values size is a hard part as String character may be encoded
> into
> > 1-4 bytes depending on Charset.
> >
> > Usually, a user don't want to care about Column length limitation and
> chars
> > collation.
> > So, we can expect a Java default behavior will be used in most cases:
> > 'unlimited' string size with up to 4-bytes characters support.
> >
> > Possible strategies
> > 3.1 Introduce 'Collation' for string and validate all the chars on row
> > assembling and rely on the user limited column length.
> > Thus, we can use varlen limits (+ collation for strings) to estimate row
> > size and pre-calculate offset_size to keep it within the schema.
> > 3.2 Introduce more row flags for different offset sizes (byte, short,
> int)
> > and calculate row size right before assembling for choosing appropriate
> > offset_size.
> > Heuristics for strings using collation is also applicable here and keep
> > algorithm complexity independent from the data length, but the schema
> only.
> >
> > I like an approach '3.2' because we already estimate row size.
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14743
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 7:25 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Igniters,
> > > I've prepared PR [1] with Public Table API for final review.
> > >
> > > Main points
> > > There are 4 projection interfaces over Table for different use-cases
> > > (Plain record vs Key-Value and POJO vs Binary object) declaring
> > synchronous
> > > and asynchronous methods.
> > > Async method returns IgniteFuture as there is no consensus on
> > IgniteFuture
> > > vs JDK CompletableFuture yet.
> > > API implementation is incomplete, it just an example of how it could be
> > > done and will be implemented in future tasks.
> > > Tuple/TupleAssembler renamed to Row/RowAssembler. Now Tuple is just a
> > > dictionary representing a subset of columns, while Row is a
> schema-aware
> > > object containing key and value columns respectively to the data
> layout.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:26 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> I see, thanks.
> > >>
> > >> Let's discuss the return type - Future is not the one to use.
> > >> We should return CompletionStage, CompletableFuture, or introduce our
> > own
> > >> interface.
> > >> We agreed on the last one (custom interface) for thin clients:
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/IEP-51-Java-Thin-Client-Async-API-td48900.html
> > >>
> > >> I believe that for Ignite 3.0 we should have the following:
> > >> public interface IgniteFuture<T> extends Future<T>,
> CompletionStage<T> {
> > >>     // No-op.
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> Thoughts?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:16 AM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > >> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Pavel,
> > >> > There are 2 PR's for the ticket[1] with two different APIs
> suggested.
> > >> > Please, take a look at PR [2].
> > >> >
> > >> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14035
> > >> > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/69
> > >> >
> > >> > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:11 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Andrey, I can't find any async methods,
> > >> > > can you please check if the changes are pushed?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 10:06 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > >> > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > Pavel, good point.
> > >> > > > Thanks. I've added async methods.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 2:29 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > >> ptupitsyn@apache.org>
> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > Andrey,
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > What about corresponding async APIs, do we add them now or
> > later?
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 8:11 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > >> > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Hi Igniters.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > I've created a PR for Table access API [1].
> > >> > > > > > This is an initial version. So, any suggestions\objections
> are
> > >> > > > welcomed.
> > >> > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to write your comments and\or
> examples
> > >> to
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > PR.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Ignite-api module contains API classes, e.g. TableView
> classes
> > >> as
> > >> > > > > > projections for a table for different purposes.
> > >> > > > > > Ignite-table contains dummy implementation and Example class
> > >> > > explained
> > >> > > > > how
> > >> > > > > > it is supposed to be used.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Also, I'm still waiting for any feedback for Schema
> > >> configuration
> > >> > > > public
> > >> > > > > > API PR [2].
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/33
> > >> > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:05 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > >> > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > I've updated a PR regarding your feedback [1].
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:58 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > >> > > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> Folks,
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> I updated the IEP to contain the missing pieces;
> actually,
> > >> most
> > >> > of
> > >> > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> questions here were covered by the text. Please let me
> know
> > >> if
> > >> > > there
> > >> > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> something still missing or unclear.
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> чт, 31 дек. 2020 г. в 12:48, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > >> > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > > >> >:
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> > Mikhail and Igniters,
> > >> > > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> > Thanks for your comments. The questions are reasonable,
> > >> > though I
> > >> > > > > think
> > >> > > > > > >> all
> > >> > > > > > >> > concerns are addressed by the IEP as Val mentioned. I
> > will
> > >> > > update
> > >> > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> > document according to your questions in the following
> > week
> > >> or
> > >> > > so,
> > >> > > > so
> > >> > > > > > we
> > >> > > > > > >> can
> > >> > > > > > >> > have a constructive discussion further.
> > >> > > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> > ср, 30 дек. 2020 г. в 11:45, Michael Cherkasov <
> > >> > > > > > >> > michael.cherkasov@gmail.com>:
> > >> > > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> Hi Val, Andrey,
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> thank you for clarifying.
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> I still have a few comments.
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> 1. one table == one schema. KV vs SQL:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> Looks like all agreed that KV is just a special case
> of
> > a
> > >> > > regular
> > >> > > > > > table
> > >> > > > > > >> >> with (blob,blob) schema.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> I worry about the case when the user starts from KV
> case
> > >> and
> > >> > > > later
> > >> > > > > > will
> > >> > > > > > >> >> try
> > >> > > > > > >> >> to expand it and try to leverage SQL for the existing
> KV
> > >> > table
> > >> > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> won't be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> able to do so and will require to reload data. which
> > isn't
> > >> > > > > convenient
> > >> > > > > > >> and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> sometimes not even possible. Is it possible to
> extract a
> > >> new
> > >> > > > field
> > >> > > > > > from
> > >> > > > > > >> >> (blob, blob) schema and apply index on it?
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> 2. Could you please also list all ways of schema
> > >> definition
> > >> > in
> > >> > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> IEP? It
> > >> > > > > > >> >> significant change and I bet the main point of this
> IEP,
> > >> > > everyone
> > >> > > > > > hates
> > >> > > > > > >> >> QueryEntities, they are difficult to manage and in
> > >> general,
> > >> > > it's
> > >> > > > > very
> > >> > > > > > >> >> confusing to have a data model(schemas) and
> node/cluster
> > >> > > > > > configuration
> > >> > > > > > >> in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> one place.
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> So there will be SchemaBuilder and SQL to define
> > schemas,
> > >> but
> > >> > > > > Andrey
> > >> > > > > > >> also
> > >> > > > > > >> >> mentioned annotations.
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> I personally against configuration via annotations,
> > while
> > >> > it's
> > >> > > > > > >> convenient
> > >> > > > > > >> >> for development, it difficult to manage because
> > different
> > >> > > classes
> > >> > > > > can
> > >> > > > > > >> be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> deployed on different clients/servers nodes and it can
> > >> lead
> > >> > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> unpredictable results.
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> 3. IEP doesn't mention field type changes, only
> drop/add
> > >> > > fields.
> > >> > > > > > Field
> > >> > > > > > >> >> type
> > >> > > > > > >> >> changes are extremely painful right now(if even
> > >> possible), so
> > >> > > it
> > >> > > > > > would
> > >> > > > > > >> be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> nice if some scenarios would be supported(like
> > >> int8->int16,
> > >> > or
> > >> > > > > > >> >> int8->String).
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> 4. got it, I thought IEP will have more details about
> > the
> > >> > > > > > >> implementation.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> I've seen Andrey even sent benchmark results for a new
> > >> > > > > serialization,
> > >> > > > > > >> will
> > >> > > > > > >> >> ping him about this.
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> 5. Thanks for the clarification. I had a wrong
> > >> understanding
> > >> > of
> > >> > > > > > strick
> > >> > > > > > >> >> mode.
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> вт, 29 дек. 2020 г. в 19:32, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > Hi Mike,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > Thanks for providing your feedback. Please see my
> > >> comments
> > >> > > > below.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > I would also encourage you to go through the IEP-54
> > [1]
> > >> -
> > >> > it
> > >> > > > has
> > >> > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > >> lot
> > >> > > > > > >> >> of
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > detail on the topic.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > [1]
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > -Val
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:22 PM Michael Cherkasov <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > michael.cherkasov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Hi all,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > I reviewed the mail thread and proposal page and I
> > >> still
> > >> > > > don't
> > >> > > > > > >> fully
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > understand what is going to be changed, I would
> > really
> > >> > > > > appreciate
> > >> > > > > > >> it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> if
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > you
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > will answer a few questions:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 1. Are you going to leave only one schema per
> cache?
> > >> if
> > >> > so,
> > >> > > > > will
> > >> > > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> there
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > an option to have a table with arbitrary
> > objects(pure
> > >> KV
> > >> > > > case)?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > My opinion is that KV case should be natively
> > >> supported. I
> > >> > > > think
> > >> > > > > > this
> > >> > > > > > >> >> still
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > needs to be thought over, my current view on this is
> > >> that
> > >> > we
> > >> > > > > should
> > >> > > > > > >> have
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > separate APIs for KV and more generic storages. KV
> > >> storage
> > >> > > can
> > >> > > > be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > implemented as a "table" with two BLOB fields where
> we
> > >> will
> > >> > > > store
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > serialized key-value pairs. That would imply
> > >> > deserialization
> > >> > > on
> > >> > > > > > read,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> but I
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > believe this is OK for KV use cases. I'm happy to
> hear
> > >> > other
> > >> > > > > ideas
> > >> > > > > > >> >> though
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > :)
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0 have to
> > define
> > >> > > schema?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > SchemaBuilder
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > and SQL only? Is there an option to put the schema
> > >> > > definition
> > >> > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > configuration?(I really don't like this, I would
> > >> prefer
> > >> > to
> > >> > > > have
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > separate scripts to create schemas)
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > There will be no such thing as a static
> configuration
> > in
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > > first
> > >> > > > > > >> >> place.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > Tables and schemas are created in runtime. Even if
> > there
> > >> > is a
> > >> > > > > file
> > >> > > > > > >> >> provided
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > on node startup, this file is only applied in the
> > scope
> > >> of
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> 'start'
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > operation. All configurations will be stored in a
> meta
> > >> > > storage
> > >> > > > > > >> >> available to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > all nodes, as opposed to individual files.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 3. Is there a way to change field type? if yes,
> can
> > >> it be
> > >> > > > done
> > >> > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > runtime?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > Absolutely! IEP-54 has a whole section about schema
> > >> > > evolution.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going to be
> > >> re-worked
> > >> > > too,
> > >> > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> there
> > >> > > > > > >> >> any
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > IEP for this?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > BinaryMarshaller as a tool for arbitrary object
> > >> > serialization
> > >> > > > > will
> > >> > > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> gone,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > but we will reuse a lot of its concept to implement
> an
> > >> > > internal
> > >> > > > > > tuple
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > serialization mechanism. IEP-54 has the description
> of
> > >> the
> > >> > > > > proposed
> > >> > > > > > >> data
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > format.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 5. I don't like automatic schema evaluation when a
> > new
> > >> > > field
> > >> > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> added
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > automatically on record put, so is there a way to
> > >> > prohibit
> > >> > > > this
> > >> > > > > > >> >> behavior?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >  I think all schema changes should be done only
> > >> > explicitly
> > >> > > > > except
> > >> > > > > > >> >> initial
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > schema creation.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > The way I see it is that we should have two modes:
> > >> > > schema-first
> > >> > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > schema-last. Schema-first means exactly what you've
> > >> > > described -
> > >> > > > > > >> schemas
> > >> > > > > > >> >> are
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > defined and updated explicitly by the user. In the
> > >> > > schema-last
> > >> > > > > > mode,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > the user does not deal with schemas, as they are
> > >> inferred
> > >> > > from
> > >> > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> data
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > inserted into tables. We should definitely not mix
> > these
> > >> > > modes
> > >> > > > -
> > >> > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> has
> > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > be one or another. And it probably makes sense to
> > >> discuss
> > >> > > which
> > >> > > > > > mode
> > >> > > > > > >> >> should
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > be the default one.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Thanks,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Mike.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Hi, Igniters.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > We all know that the current QueryEntity API is
> > not
> > >> > > > > convenient
> > >> > > > > > >> and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > needs
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > be reworked.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema
> > >> configuration
> > >> > > > public
> > >> > > > > > API
> > >> > > > > > >> >> for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Ignite 3.0.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > New schema configuration uses Builder pattern,
> > which
> > >> > > looks
> > >> > > > > more
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > comfortable
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > to use.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package with
> > the
> > >> API
> > >> > > > > itself,
> > >> > > > > > >> and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > draft
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and a test that demonstrates how the API could
> be
> > >> used.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Please note:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with
> static
> > >> > > factory
> > >> > > > > > >> methods.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * The implementation is decoupled and can be
> > easily
> > >> > > > extracted
> > >> > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > separate
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > module if we decide to do so.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are
> missed,
> > >> they
> > >> > > will
> > >> > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > >> added
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > lately
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > in separate tickes.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Index configuration extends marker interface
> > that
> > >> > makes
> > >> > > > > > >> possible
> > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Hopfully, we could add a persistent geo-indices
> > >> support
> > >> > > in
> > >> > > > > > >> future.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Supposedly, current table schema can be
> changed
> > >> via
> > >> > > > > > >> builder-like
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See
> > >> > > > > > >> >> 'TableModificationBuilder'
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > details.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have
> > 'toBuilder()'
> > >> > > > > converter
> > >> > > > > > >> for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> that
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > purpose as it is a Schema Manager responsibility
> > to
> > >> > > create
> > >> > > > > > >> mutator
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > objects
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > from the current schema,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > but implementing the Schema manager is out of
> > scope
> > >> and
> > >> > > > will
> > >> > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > designed
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > within the next task.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Interfaces implementations are out of scope. I
> > did
> > >> > not
> > >> > > > > intend
> > >> > > > > > >> to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > merge
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > them right now, but for test/demostration
> > purposes.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > It is NOT the final version and some may be
> > changed
> > >> > > before
> > >> > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> first
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > release of course.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed with
> > >> this
> > >> > > > > approach
> > >> > > > > > or
> > >> > > > > > >> >> some
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > issues should be resolved at first.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Any thoughts or objections?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Are interfaces good enough to be merged within
> the
> > >> > > current
> > >> > > > > > >> ticket?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <
> > >> > > > > > >> jury.gerzhedowich@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 2. It requires adding new types to the
> internal
> > >> > > > > > representation,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > protocol,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > e.t.c.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 3. internal representation should be the same
> as
> > >> we
> > >> > > keep
> > >> > > > > sign
> > >> > > > > > >> >> types.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > So
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > will not requires more memory
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such
> types
> > >> for
> > >> > > > > platforms
> > >> > > > > > >> >> which
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > not
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > support unsigned types. For example, a user
> > could
> > >> > > derive
> > >> > > > -6
> > >> > > > > > >> value
> > >> > > > > > >> >> in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits
> > perspective
> > >> > will
> > >> > > > be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> right). I
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > think
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such
> cases,
> > >> > > > especially
> > >> > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> will be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > bad
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for unsigned long when we require returns
> > >> BigInteger
> > >> > > > type.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix
> for
> > >> new
> > >> > > types
> > >> > > > > > like
> > >> > > > > > >> a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > '250u' -
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive
> > >> comparison
> > >> > > > logic
> > >> > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > indexes
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for
> > >> expressions.
> > >> > I
> > >> > > > > think
> > >> > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> not
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > possible for the current H2 engine and
> probably
> > >> > > possible
> > >> > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> new
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from
> anybody
> > >> who
> > >> > > > > involved
> > >> > > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> this
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > part
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > WDYT?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey
> Goncharuk <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0:
> > >> once
> > >> > we
> > >> > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> actual
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > type
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > information, we can make proper runtime
> > >> adjustments
> > >> > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> conversions
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will be
> > >> just a
> > >> > > bit
> > >> > > > > more
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > expensive.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel
> Tupitsyn <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons
> > >> and so
> > >> > > on
> > >> > > > > are
> > >> > > > > > >> >> broken
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I
> mentioned
> > >> this
> > >> > > > > > somewhere
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > above.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document that
> > >> SQL is
> > >> > > not
> > >> > > > > > >> >> supported
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > on
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > those
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > types,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > end of story.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey
> > >> Goncharuk
> > >> > <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable
> > >> request. I
> > >> > > > > thought
> > >> > > > > > >> about
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > this
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > when
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > I
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to
> add
> > >> > these
> > >> > > > > types
> > >> > > > > > >> right
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > away.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since
> the
> > >> > > > beginning
> > >> > > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> .NET
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > C++
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > :)
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually
> works
> > as
> > >> > > > > expected,
> > >> > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> needs
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > some
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns
> are
> > >> > false):
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - It's true that equality check works
> > >> > > properly,
> > >> > > > > but
> > >> > > > > > >> for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> SQL
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > range
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    queries it will break unless some
> > special
> > >> > care
> > >> > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> taken
> > >> > > > > > >> >> on
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > side:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255
> will
> > >> be
> > >> > > > > converted
> > >> > > > > > >> to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> -1,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > which
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we don't
> > have
> > >> > > > unsigned
> > >> > > > > > >> types
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > now,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > I
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > doubt
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    works.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - There is an obvious cross-platform
> > data
> > >> > loss
> > >> > > > > when
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > "intuitive"
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > type
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8
> > >> corresponds to
> > >> > > > byte
> > >> > > > > > >> type in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > .NET,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > but
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have
> to
> > >> use
> > >> > > short
> > >> > > > > > type
> > >> > > > > > >> in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > Java,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    will also need to take care of the
> > range
> > >> > check
> > >> > > > > > during
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > serialization).
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > I
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    think we can even allow to try to
> > >> > deserialize
> > >> > > a
> > >> > > > > > value
> > >> > > > > > >> >> into
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > arbitrary
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > type,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    but throw an exception if the range
> is
> > >> out
> > >> > of
> > >> > > > > > bounds.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP
> once
> > >> all
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > > > details
> > >> > > > > > >> >> are
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > settled
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > here?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey
> > >> Mashenkov
> > >> > <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63
> can't
> > >> be
> > >> > > > treated
> > >> > > > > > >> >> correctly
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > now
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I think we could make "true" support
> for
> > >> > > unsigned
> > >> > > > > > >> types,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> but
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > they
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map
> > >> uint64
> > >> > to
> > >> > > > > Java
> > >> > > > > > >> long
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > primitive,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > but
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > BigInteger only.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64
> to
> > >> Java
> > >> > > > long,
> > >> > > > > > but
> > >> > > > > > >> >> treat
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > negative
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > values in a different way to preserve
> > >> correct
> > >> > > > > > ordering.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > These limitations will affect only
> mixed
> > >> > > > > environments
> > >> > > > > > >> when
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > .Net
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Java
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > used to access the data.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Will this solution address your
> issues?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel
> > >> > Tupitsyn
> > >> > > <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since
> > the
> > >> > > > > beginning
> > >> > > > > > >> with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > .NET
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > C++
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > :)
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as
> > cache
> > >> > keys
> > >> > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> values,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > as
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > fields
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > properties,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE
> x=y
> > >> > > clauses)
> > >> > > > -
> > >> > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> works
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > transparently
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the users.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats
> > those
> > >> > > values
> > >> > > > > as
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > corresponding
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > signed
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > types.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in
> > some
> > >> > cases
> > >> > > > > only
> > >> > > > > > >> >> because
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > there
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > are
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > no
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very
> > simple
> > >> > > change
> > >> > > > to
> > >> > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > protocol
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > -
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > add
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > type
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as
> > >> signed
> > >> > > > > > >> >> counterparts.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM
> Andrey
> > >> > > > Mashenkov
> > >> > > > > <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java
> > (bitwise
> > >> > > > > > >> representation
> > >> > > > > > >> >> is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > same)
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class
> with a
> > >> > uByte
> > >> > > > > field
> > >> > > > > > >> and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> map
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > 'uint8'
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > column.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to
> > "250"
> > >> and
> > >> > > put
> > >> > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> object
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > into a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > table,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a
> > single
> > >> > byte
> > >> > > > > > 'int8'
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > column.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize
> it
> > >> to
> > >> > > > > directly
> > >> > > > > > >> the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> Java
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > object
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > field
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map
> uint8
> > >> type
> > >> > to
> > >> > > > > Java
> > >> > > > > > >> >> 'short'
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > type
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > because the one expected to see
> > "250"
> > >> as
> > >> > a
> > >> > > > > value
> > >> > > > > > >> which
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > doesn't
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > fit
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > signed type.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a
> > >> BigInteger
> > >> > > > field
> > >> > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> Java.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat
> column
> > >> value
> > >> > > as
> > >> > > > > Java
> > >> > > > > > >> >> 'byte'
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > as
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > is,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > because
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a
> > negative
> > >> > > value,
> > >> > > > so
> > >> > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> should
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > cast
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > short
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger
> > for
> > >> > > > uint64)
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will
> > require
> > >> a
> > >> > > > > different
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > comparator.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM
> > Pavel
> > >> > > > Tupitsyn
> > >> > > > > <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing
> is a
> > >> good
> > >> > > > idea.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the
> > >> simple
> > >> > > > > > approach
> > >> > > > > > >> I
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > described?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM
> > >> Andrey
> > >> > > > > > Mashenkov
> > >> > > > > > >> <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing
> > range
> > >> > for
> > >> > > > > > unsigned
> > >> > > > > > >> >> types
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > then
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > we
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > could
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > add a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types
> on
> > >> > schema
> > >> > > > > level
> > >> > > > > > >> >> (like
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > nullability
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > flag)
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types
> > in
> > >> > > > storage.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate
> > >> storage
> > >> > > > > > >> type-system
> > >> > > > > > >> >> and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > binary
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > protocol
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of
> > type
> > >> > will
> > >> > > > > match
> > >> > > > > > 1
> > >> > > > > > >> to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> 1
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > storage
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (native)
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either
> > have
> > >> a
> > >> > > > > separate
> > >> > > > > > >> type
> > >> > > > > > >> >> id
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > or
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > treat
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > serialized
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema
> (signed
> > >> or
> > >> > > > > unsigned
> > >> > > > > > >> >> flag).
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever
> > >> foresee
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> consequences
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > of
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > using
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > types.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to
> unsigned
> > >> types
> > >> > > > > > perfectly
> > >> > > > > > >> >> works
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > some
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > database,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite
> > >> successor
> > >> > > > > > confession
> > >> > > > > > >> >> with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > our
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > "native"
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he
> can
> > >> use
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > > power
> > >> > > > > > >> of
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > Ignite
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Compute
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either
> > >> fail to
> > >> > > use
> > >> > > > > his
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > unsigned
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > data
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Java
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > due
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due to
> > >> > natural
> > >> > > > Java
> > >> > > > > > >> type
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > system
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > limitations
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > e.g.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to
> BigInteger.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively
> > supported
> > >> > types
> > >> > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> possible
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > value
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > ranges
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is what
> > >> > trade-off
> > >> > > > we
> > >> > > > > > >> found
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > acceptable:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > narrowing
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use
> types
> > >> of
> > >> > > wider
> > >> > > > > > >> range on
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > systems
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > like
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Java.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25
> PM
> > >> Igor
> > >> > > > > Sapego <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not
> so
> > >> hard
> > >> > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> implement
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > comparison
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does
> > not
> > >> > seem
> > >> > > > to
> > >> > > > > > be a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> big
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > issue
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > from
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > my
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned
> > >> types
> > >> > > from
> > >> > > > > > Java
> > >> > > > > > >> - I
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > think,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > if
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > user
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to
> > >> > interact
> > >> > > > with
> > >> > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> from
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > he
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > knows
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > what
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > he
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from
> > >> > > platforms
> > >> > > > > > where
> > >> > > > > > >> >> they
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > have
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > native
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > support
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > widely
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET,
> > where
> > >> > > users
> > >> > > > > > >> currently
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > have
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > make a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > manual
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > casting
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using
> > unsigned
> > >> > > types
> > >> > > > > when
> > >> > > > > > >> they
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > use
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Ignite.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06
> > PM
> > >> > Pavel
> > >> > > > > > >> Tupitsyn <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much
> simpler:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for
> > >> those
> > >> > > > types
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > (basically,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > just
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > add
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > more
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in
> > Java
> > >> > > > (bitwise
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > representation
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > same)
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have
> > >> unsigned
> > >> > > > > integers,
> > >> > > > > > >> so
> > >> > > > > > >> >> we
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > can
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > simply
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > say
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative
> > >> > comparison
> > >> > > is
> > >> > > > > not
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > supported
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > SQL
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (equality
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
> 2:40
> > >> PM
> > >> > > > Andrey
> > >> > > > > > >> >> Mashenkov
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to
> have
> > >> i8 or
> > >> > > > int8
> > >> > > > > > >> >> instead of
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Integer.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't
> > >> address
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > > > > issue.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types
> > >> should
> > >> > be
> > >> > > > > > portable
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > across
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > different
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > systems
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type
> > >> support.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is
> > that
> > >> > > > unsigned
> > >> > > > > > >> types
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > cover
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > different
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > ranges.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to
> > >> > > introduce a
> > >> > > > > > >> uLong.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a
> big
> > >> deal
> > >> > > to
> > >> > > > > add
> > >> > > > > > >> uLong
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > type
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > support
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > at
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > storage
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes
> > and
> > >> > then
> > >> > > > use
> > >> > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> e.g.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > .Net
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > only.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support
> > it
> > >> in
> > >> > > e.g.
> > >> > > > > > Java?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long
> > >> range
> > >> > is
> > >> > > > > about
> > >> > > > > > >> >> (2^-63
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > ..
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 2^63)
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > range
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is
> to
> > >> > > restrict
> > >> > > > > > range
> > >> > > > > > >> to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> (0
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > ..
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > 2^63).
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > This
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion,
> > but
> > >> > > > doesn't
> > >> > > > > > look
> > >> > > > > > >> >> like
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 'real'
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse
> > >> when
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > > user
> > >> > > > > > >> will
> > >> > > > > > >> >> use
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > uByte,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > as
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > limitation
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally
> > unusable.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to
> > map
> > >> > > > unsigned
> > >> > > > > > >> types
> > >> > > > > > >> >> to a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > type
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > wider
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for
> negative
> > >> > values.
> > >> > > > > E.g.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> uLong to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > BigInteger.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use
> primitive
> > >> Java
> > >> > > > type
> > >> > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> Long
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > here.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > However,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > still
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong
> > in 8
> > >> > > bytes,
> > >> > > > > but
> > >> > > > > > >> >> have a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > special
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > comparator
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid
> > >> > unwanted
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > deserialization.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
> > >> 2:04 PM
> > >> > > > Pavel
> > >> > > > > > >> >> Tupitsyn
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid
> of
> > >> > "long,
> > >> > > > > short,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> byte"
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > protocol
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style,
> > >> which
> > >> > is
> > >> > > > > > concise
> > >> > > > > > >> >> and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > unambiguous:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020
> at
> > >> 1:58
> > >> > PM
> > >> > > > > Igor
> > >> > > > > > >> >> Sapego <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support
> > that.
> > >> > Also,
> > >> > > > if
> > >> > > > > we
> > >> > > > > > >> are
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > aiming
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger
> > >> > > platform-independance,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we
> may
> > >> want
> > >> > to
> > >> > > > > > support
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > bit-notation
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (int32,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a
> > >> different
> > >> > > > type
> > >> > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > different
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > platforms
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often
> > when
> > >> > > using
> > >> > > > > ODBC
> > >> > > > > > >> for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > example).
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020
> > at
> > >> > 1:34
> > >> > > PM
> > >> > > > > > Pavel
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Tupitsyn
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should
> > >> support
> > >> > > > > > unsigned
> > >> > > > > > >> >> data
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > types:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort,
> uInt,
> > >> > uLong
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have
> > >> them,
> > >> > > but
> > >> > > > > many
> > >> > > > > > >> >> other
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > languages
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > do,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the
> growing
> > >> > number
> > >> > > > of
> > >> > > > > > thin
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > clients
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > this
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > important.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in
> > >> current
> > >> > > > > > Ignite.NET
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > implementation
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > we
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > store
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed
> > internally,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge
> > >> pain
> > >> > > when
> > >> > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> comes
> > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > metadata,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > binary
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to
> > >> > deserialize
> > >> > > > int
> > >> > > > > as
> > >> > > > > > >> uint
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > when
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > you
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > have
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > class,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24,
> 2020
> > >> at
> > >> > > 12:28
> > >> > > > > PM
> > >> > > > > > >> >> Andrey
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Mashenkov <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both
> > >> > > > serializers
> > >> > > > > > use
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > reflection
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will
> > >> allow
> > >> > > > users
> > >> > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > configure
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > static
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > schema
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > along
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we
> > >> still
> > >> > > need
> > >> > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> validate
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > user
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > classes
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > client
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest
> schema
> > in
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > grid
> > >> > > > > > >> and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > reflection
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a
> few
> > >> > > articles
> > >> > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > >> the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > internet
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > how
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > enable
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a
> task
> > >> for
> > >> > > > > > supporting
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > GraalVM,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > maybe
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > someone
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with
> > >> GraalVM
> > >> > > will
> > >> > > > > > >> suggest a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > solution
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > or
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proper
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit
> > >> later.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround
> > is
> > >> > > found,
> > >> > > > we
> > >> > > > > > >> could
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > allow
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > users
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > write
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > own
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but
> I
> > >> don't
> > >> > > > think
> > >> > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > good
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > idea
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > expose
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the
> > >> public.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24,
> > >> 2020 at
> > >> > > > 2:55
> > >> > > > > AM
> > >> > > > > > >> >> Denis
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Magda <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks
> > for
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > > > update,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of
> the
> > >> > > > serializers
> > >> > > > > > >> take
> > >> > > > > > >> >> into
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > consideration
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > native-image-generation
> > >> > > > > > >> feature of
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > GraalVM?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the
> current
> > >> > binary
> > >> > > > > > >> >> marshaller,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > we
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > can't
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > even
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > generate
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code
> > using
> > >> > our
> > >> > > > thin
> > >> > > > > > >> client
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > APIs.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov
> 23,
> > >> 2020
> > >> > at
> > >> > > > > 4:39
> > >> > > > > > AM
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > Andrey
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to
> > >> > continue
> > >> > > > > > >> discussion
> > >> > > > > > >> >> of
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > IEP-54
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope
> everyone
> > >> who
> > >> > is
> > >> > > > > > >> interested
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > had a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > chance
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > get
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal
> [1].
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do
> not
> > >> > > hesitate
> > >> > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> ask
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > questions
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > share
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > your
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> prepared
> > a
> > >> > > > prototype
> > >> > > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > serializer
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > [2]
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > data
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the
> > proposal.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy,
> I
> > >> > > compared
> > >> > > > 2
> > >> > > > > > >> >> approaches
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > (de)serialize
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java
> > >> > > > > reflection/unsafe
> > >> > > > > > >> API
> > >> > > > > > >> >> and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > similar
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > one
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > we
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the
> second
> > >> one
> > >> > > > > > generates
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > serializer
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > particular
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > user
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino
> library
> > >> for
> > >> > > > > > >> compilation.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one
> > shows
> > >> > > better
> > >> > > > > > >> results
> > >> > > > > > >> >> in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > benchmarks.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we
> can
> > >> go
> > >> > > with
> > >> > > > it
> > >> > > > > > as
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > default
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > serializer
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> implementation
> > >> as a
> > >> > > > > > fallback
> > >> > > > > > >> if
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > someone
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > issues
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a
> > >> number
> > >> > of
> > >> > > > > tasks
> > >> > > > > > >> >> under
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > umbrella
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ticket
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm
> going
> > >> to
> > >> > > > create
> > >> > > > > > more
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > tickets
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > schema
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > manager
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > implementation,
> > >> but
> > >> > > > would
> > >> > > > > > >> like
> > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > clarify
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > some
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > details.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought
> > >> > > schemaManager
> > >> > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > >> each
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > node
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > should
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > held:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local
> > >> mapping
> > >> > of
> > >> > > > > > "schema
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > version"
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > <-->
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > validated
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes
> pair.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2.
> > >> Cluster-wide
> > >> > > > schema
> > >> > > > > > >> changes
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > history.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the
> client
> > >> side.
> > >> > > > > Before
> > >> > > > > > >> any
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > key-value
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > operation
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a
> > >> given
> > >> > > > > > key-value
> > >> > > > > > >> >> pair.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is
> no
> > >> > > > > > local-mapping
> > >> > > > > > >> >> exists
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > given
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide
> > >> schema
> > >> > > > has a
> > >> > > > > > >> more
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > recent
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > version
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be
> > >> validated
> > >> > > > > against
> > >> > > > > > >> the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > latest
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > version
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> updated/actualized.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object
> > >> > doesn't
> > >> > > > fit
> > >> > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > latest
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > schema
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > depends
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either
> > >> fail
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > > > >> operation
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > ('strict'
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > mode)
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > or
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and
> a
> > >> new
> > >> > > > schema
> > >> > > > > > >> version
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > should
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > propagated
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the
> server
> > >> side
> > >> > we
> > >> > > > > > usually
> > >> > > > > > >> >> have
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > no
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > key-value
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > classes
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema
> > change
> > >> > > > history
> > >> > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > available
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > tuple
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > has
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is
> possible
> > >> to
> > >> > > > upgrade
> > >> > > > > > any
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > received
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > tuple
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > last
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> desialization.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we
> could
> > >> allow
> > >> > > > nodes
> > >> > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> send
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > key-value
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > pairs
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't
> > >> > receive a
> > >> > > > > > schema
> > >> > > > > > >> >> update
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > yet)
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > without
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > reverting
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a
> node
> > >> with
> > >> > > > newer
> > >> > > > > > >> >> classes.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val,
> > Ivan
> > >> did
> > >> > > you
> > >> > > > > > mean
> > >> > > > > > >> the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > same?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep
> > 17,
> > >> > 2020
> > >> > > at
> > >> > > > > > 9:21
> > >> > > > > > >> AM
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > Ivan
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Pavlukhin
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do
> > not
> > >> > > ignore
> > >> > > > > > >> history.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> We
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > had
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > thread
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > many
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We
> > can
> > >> > > resume
> > >> > > > > it.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10
> > >> 0:08
> > >> > > > > > GMT+03:00,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> Denis
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Magda
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val,
> makes
> > >> > sense,
> > >> > > > > > thanks
> > >> > > > > > >> for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > explaining.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree
> that
> > >> we
> > >> > > need
> > >> > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> have a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > separate
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> > >> terms
> > >> > > > > > >> substitution.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > I'll
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > appreciate
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > if
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing
> > >> > pointers
> > >> > > to
> > >> > > > > any
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > relevant
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > IEPs
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > reasoning
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue,
> > Sep
> > >> 8,
> > >> > > 2020
> > >> > > > > at
> > >> > > > > > >> 6:01
> > >> > > > > > >> >> PM
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Valentin
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi
> Denis,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess
> > the
> > >> > > > wording
> > >> > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > >> the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> IEP
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > little
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > bit
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that
> you
> > >> > should
> > >> > > > not
> > >> > > > > > >> create
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > nested
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > POJOs,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > but
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single
> > POJO
> > >> > that
> > >> > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> mapped
> > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > particular
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs
> are
> > >> not
> > >> > > > > > supported.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex,
> is
> > >> this
> > >> > > > > correct?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> Please
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > let
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > me
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > know
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > if
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > missing
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for
> > the
> > >> > > "cache"
> > >> > > > > > >> term, I
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > agree
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we
> > can
> > >> > > > replace
> > >> > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> with.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > "Table"
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > tightly
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is
> > >> > optional
> > >> > > in
> > >> > > > > our
> > >> > > > > > >> >> case.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > Do
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > you
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > want
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > create a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about
> > this?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue,
> > >> Sep 8,
> > >> > > > 2020
> > >> > > > > at
> > >> > > > > > >> >> 4:37 PM
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Denis
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Magda <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've
> > >> checked
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > > > IEP
> > >> > > > > > >> again
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > have a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > few
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > questions.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > Arbitrary
> > >> > > nested
> > >> > > > > > >> objects
> > >> > > > > > >> >> and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > collections
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > are
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> values.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> Nested
> > >> > POJOs
> > >> > > > > should
> > >> > > > > > >> >> either
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > inlined
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > into
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could
> > you
> > >> > > > provide a
> > >> > > > > > DDL
> > >> > > > > > >> >> code
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > snippet
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > showing
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > how
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> supposed
> > >> to
> > >> > > work?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also,
> we
> > >> keep
> > >> > > > using
> > >> > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> terms
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > "cache"
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > right
> > >> > time
> > >> > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> discuss
> > >> > > > > > >> >> an
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > alternate
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > name
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> Personally,
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > > > "table"
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > should
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > stay
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> considering
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> SQL
> > >> is
> > >> > one
> > >> > > > of
> > >> > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > primary
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > APIs
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > out-of-the-box.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On
> Mon,
> > >> Sep
> > >> > 7,
> > >> > > > 2020
> > >> > > > > > at
> > >> > > > > > >> >> 12:26
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > PM
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> Ivan,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I
> see
> > >> your
> > >> > > > > point. I
> > >> > > > > > >> >> agree
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > that
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > automatic
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> schema-last
> > >> > > > > > >> territory.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> Actually,
> > >> > if
> > >> > > we
> > >> > > > > > >> support
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > automatic
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > evolution,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> creating a
> > >> > > > cache
> > >> > > > > > >> without
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > schema
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > inferring
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > insert.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> other
> > >> > words,
> > >> > > we
> > >> > > > > can
> > >> > > > > > >> have
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > both
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > Alexey,
> > >> > what
> > >> > > do
> > >> > > > > you
> > >> > > > > > >> >> think?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On
> > Mon,
> > >> Sep
> > >> > > 7,
> > >> > > > > 2020
> > >> > > > > > >> at
> > >> > > > > > >> >> 5:59
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > AM
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Alexey
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > Ivan,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > Thank
> > >> > you,
> > >> > > I
> > >> > > > > got
> > >> > > > > > >> your
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > concern
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > now.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > As
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> > > terminology,
> > >> > > > I
> > >> > > > > am
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > absolutely
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > fine
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> the
> > >> > > approach
> > >> > > > > > best.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > Dynamic
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > or
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > evolving
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> > > corresponding
> > >> > > > > > >> changes
> > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > IEP
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > once
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > we
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > settle
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> пн,
> > 7
> > >> > сент.
> > >> > > > > 2020
> > >> > > > > > >> г. в
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 11:33,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Ivan
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> vololo100@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> Hi
> > >> Val,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> Thank
> > >> > you
> > >> > > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> your
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > answer!
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> My
> > >> > > > > > understanding
> > >> > > > > > >> is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > little
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > bit
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > different.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > > definitely
> > >> > > > > > >> should be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > possible.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > But
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > see
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > main
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> schema
> > >> > is
> > >> > > > > > >> updated".
> > >> > > > > > >> >> I
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > treat a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > common
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > and
> > >> > data
> > >> > > > > > >> >> manipulation
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > operations
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > are
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > clearly
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> enables
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > > interesting
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > capabilities,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > e.g.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > preventing
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> by
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > mistaken
> > >> > > > data
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > operations,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > restricting
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > user
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> schema.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >
> > >> > > > > Schema-first
> > >> > > > > > >> means
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > that
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > schema
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > exists
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> data
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> is
> > >> > > > compliant
> > >> > > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> it -
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > that's
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > exactly
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > what
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> A
> > >> > > > schema-last
> > >> > > > > > >> >> approach
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > mentioned
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > also
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> exists,
> > >> > > but
> > >> > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > inferred
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > from
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > data.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > proposing
> > >> > > > > > >> approach?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > And
> > >> I
> > >> > > would
> > >> > > > > > like
> > >> > > > > > >> to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > say,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > that
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > my
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > main
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > concern
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> about
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > > > terminology.
> > >> > > > > > And
> > >> > > > > > >> I
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > suppose
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > if
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > confuses
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > confused
> > >> > > as
> > >> > > > > > >> well. My
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > feeling
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > closer
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > may
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > evolving
> > >> > > > > > schema".
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > [1]
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > >
> > >>
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > > 2020-09-07
> > >> > > > > 0:47
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > GMT+03:00,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >
> > Hi
> > >> > > Ivan,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >
> > I
> > >> > don't
> > >> > > > see
> > >> > > > > > an
> > >> > > > > > >> >> issue
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > that.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >
> > >> > advance
> > >> > > > and
> > >> > > > > > all
> > >> > > > > > >> >> the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > stored
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > data
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > compliant
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> exactly
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > what
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >
> > is
> > >> > > > > proposed.
> > >> > > > > > >> There
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > are
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > no
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > restrictions
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >
> > >> the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> schema.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >
> > >> -Val
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >
> > On
> > >> > Sat,
> > >> > > > Sep
> > >> > > > > > 5,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> 2020
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > at
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > 9:52
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > PM
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ivan
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > > Alexey,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> I
> > >> > am a
> > >> > > > > > little
> > >> > > > > > >> bit
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > confused
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> understanding
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > conforms
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> to a
> > >> > > > > survey
> > >> > > > > > >> [1]
> > >> > > > > > >> >> (see
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > part
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > X
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Semi
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Structured
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > really
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> treat
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> a
> > >> > > > "dynamic
> > >> > > > > > >> >> schema"
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > approach
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > as a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > kind
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> [1]
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > >
> > >>
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > > > 2020-09-02
> > >> > > > > > >> 1:53
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > GMT+03:00,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Denis
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> dmagda@apache.org
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > > > However,
> > >> > > > > > >> could
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > you
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > please
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> Ignite
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > ORM?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > Is
> > >> > > > > there
> > >> > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > >> use
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > case
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > (I
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> haven't
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > seen
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > one
> > >> > > > so
> > >> > > > > > >> far)?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> If
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > so,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > what
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side
> to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > > support
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > this?
> > >> > > > > In
> > >> > > > > > my
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > already
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > have.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > Am
> > >> > > I
> > >> > > > > > >> missing
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > something?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > Good
> > >> > > > > > point,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> yes,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > if
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > all
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > ORM
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > > > > internally,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> then
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > they
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > can
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > easily
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > translate
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> INSERT/UPDATE
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > statement
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > lists
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > all
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > Luckily,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > our
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > Spring
> > >> > > > > > Data
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > integration
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > already
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > based
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > APIs
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > needs
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > to
> > >> > > be
> > >> > > > > > >> improved
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > once
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > would
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > solve
> > >> > > > a
> > >> > > > > > ton
> > >> > > > > > >> of
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > usability
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > issues.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > I
> > >> > > > would
> > >> > > > > > >> revise
> > >> > > > > > >> >> the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Hibernate
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > integration
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> 3.0
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> dev
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > phase.
> > >> > > > > > Can't
> > >> > > > > > >> >> say
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > if
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > it's
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > used
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > lot
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > > getting
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > traction
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > sure.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > > @Michael
> > >> > > > > > >> >> Pollind,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > I'll
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > loop
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > you
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > long
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > working
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> on
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > Ignite
> > >> > > > > > >> support
> > >> > > > > > >> >> for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Micornaut
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Data
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > >
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/
> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > came
> > >> > > > > > across
> > >> > > > > > >> >> some
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > challenges.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Just
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > watch
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > That's
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > coming
> > >> > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> Ignite
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 3.0.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > -
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > Denis
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > On
> > >> > > > Mon,
> > >> > > > > > Aug
> > >> > > > > > >> 31,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > 2020
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > at
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > 5:11
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > Hi
> > >> > > > > Denis,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > > > Generally
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > speaking, I
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > believe
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> natively
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > > > addresses
> > >> > > > > > >> the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > issue
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > if
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > duplicate
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> objects,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > > because
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > > schema
> > >> > > > > > >> will be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > created
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > cache,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> happens
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> now.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > Basically,
> > >> > > > > > >> the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > schema
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > define
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > whether
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > not,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > and
> > >> > > > > which
> > >> > > > > > >> >> fields
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > are
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > included
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > case
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > would
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > have
> > >> > > > > must
> > >> > > > > > >> be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > compliant
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > this,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > so
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > data
> > >> > > > as
> > >> > > > > > >> with a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > set
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > of
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > records,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > > > However,
> > >> > > > > > >> could
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > you
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > please
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> Ignite
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > ORM?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > Is
> > >> > > > > there
> > >> > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > >> use
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > case
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > (I
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> haven't
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > seen
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > one
> > >> > > > so
> > >> > > > > > >> far)?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> If
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > so,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > what
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side
> to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > > support
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > this?
> > >> > > > > In
> > >> > > > > > my
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > already
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > have.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > Am
> > >> > > I
> > >> > > > > > >> missing
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > something?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > -Val
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > On
> > >> > > > Mon,
> > >> > > > > > Aug
> > >> > > > > > >> >> 31,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 2020
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > at
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > 2:08
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > Val,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > I
> > >> > > > > would
> > >> > > > > > >> >> propose
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > adding
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > another
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > point
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > list
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > which
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > related
> > >> > > > > > >> to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > ORM
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > frameworks
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > such
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > Hibernate,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > > > Micronaut
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > many
> > >> > > > > > >> others.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> Presently,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > storage
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > engine
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requires
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > objects
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > from
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > value
> > >> > > > > > >> ones
> > >> > > > > > >> >> that
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > complicate
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> frameworks
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> (especially
> > >> > > > > > >> >> if
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > key
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > object
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > comprises
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > More
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> this
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> can
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > found
> > >> > > > > > >> here:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > It
> > >> > > > > will
> > >> > > > > > >> be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> nice
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > if
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > new
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> work
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > single
> > >> > > > > > >> >> entity
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > object
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > when
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > comes
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need
> to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > split
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > entity
> > >> > > > > > >> into
> > >> > > > > > >> >> a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > key
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > value.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Just
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > want
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> Ignite
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > 3.0
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > has
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > all
> > >> > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > essential
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > public
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > APIs
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> > > single-entity
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > based
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > approach.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > What
> > >> > > > > do
> > >> > > > > > >> you
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > think?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > -
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > Denis
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > On
> > >> > > > > Fri,
> > >> > > > > > >> Aug
> > >> > > > > > >> >> 28,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > 2020
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > at
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > 3:50
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > PM
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> Igniters,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > One
> > >> > > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > >> the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > big
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > changes
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proposed
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> so-called
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> "schema-first
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > approach".
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > To
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > add
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > started
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> writing
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > IEP
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> this
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > change:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > Please
> > >> > > > > > >> >> take a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > look
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > let
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > me
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > immediate
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> thoughts,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> suggestions,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > or
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > objections.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > -Val
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> --
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> Best
> > >> > > > > > regards,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> Ivan
> > >> > > > > > Pavlukhin
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> --
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > Best
> > >> > > > regards,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > Ivan
> > >> > > > > Pavlukhin
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best
> > regards,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan
> > Pavlukhin
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best
> regards,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V.
> > >> Mashenkov
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V.
> > Mashenkov
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > --
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Best regards,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > --
> > >> > > > Best regards,
> > >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > Best regards,
> > >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >
>


-- 
Best regards,
Andrey V. Mashenkov

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Ilya Kasnacheev <il...@gmail.com>]

Hello!

How about:

First, all fields for which we know their specific order and size go, such
as byte, short, int, long, boolean. This means that any short field will
take just 2 bytes with no padding.
Then, all var-len fields go, such as nested object, strings, etc.

After that, we know total object size already, right?
If size <= 256, then all offsets are 1 byte unsigned.
If size < 65k, then all offsets are 2 byte.
Else, all offsets are 4 byte.

We can count offsets starting from the first byle after constant fields
section and offsets section.
For the first varlen field, the offset is always 0, so we may skip this one
and start with offset of the second var field.

For compression it is trickier. I suggest not having any explicit support
for compression right here, so that later on compression may use a
different object layout to be more efficient.

Regards,
-- 
Ilya Kasnacheev


ср, 19 мая 2021 г. в 16:43, Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>:

> Hi Igniters,
>
> I've create a ticket [1] for large row support.
>
> We use 2-bytes offsets for varlen fields that are supposed to be large
> enough.
> AFAIK, some users use multi-MB values and 64k per Row looks like a strong
> limitation.
>
> So, we have either to increase offset_size up to 4-bytes or use some
> advanced mechanics for compression or adaptive offset_size.
>
> 1. Increasing offset size may add overhead for keys like next:
> class Key {
>    int id;
>    String str; // Some short string code.
> }
>
> 2. Compression will require table to be decompressed on every varlen column
> access, e.g. for comparison purposes while index scan.
> Also, we may need to pre-calculate compressed table size to avoid buffer
> copying (shrinking or extending) during row assembling.
>
> 3. Adaptive offset_size implies row size estimation.
> We already do to reduce the probability of buffer expanding, but we need a
> high margin for this purpose.
> 'String' values size is a hard part as String character may be encoded into
> 1-4 bytes depending on Charset.
>
> Usually, a user don't want to care about Column length limitation and chars
> collation.
> So, we can expect a Java default behavior will be used in most cases:
> 'unlimited' string size with up to 4-bytes characters support.
>
> Possible strategies
> 3.1 Introduce 'Collation' for string and validate all the chars on row
> assembling and rely on the user limited column length.
> Thus, we can use varlen limits (+ collation for strings) to estimate row
> size and pre-calculate offset_size to keep it within the schema.
> 3.2 Introduce more row flags for different offset sizes (byte, short, int)
> and calculate row size right before assembling for choosing appropriate
> offset_size.
> Heuristics for strings using collation is also applicable here and keep
> algorithm complexity independent from the data length, but the schema only.
>
> I like an approach '3.2' because we already estimate row size.
> Any thoughts?
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14743
>
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 7:25 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Igniters,
> > I've prepared PR [1] with Public Table API for final review.
> >
> > Main points
> > There are 4 projection interfaces over Table for different use-cases
> > (Plain record vs Key-Value and POJO vs Binary object) declaring
> synchronous
> > and asynchronous methods.
> > Async method returns IgniteFuture as there is no consensus on
> IgniteFuture
> > vs JDK CompletableFuture yet.
> > API implementation is incomplete, it just an example of how it could be
> > done and will be implemented in future tasks.
> > Tuple/TupleAssembler renamed to Row/RowAssembler. Now Tuple is just a
> > dictionary representing a subset of columns, while Row is a schema-aware
> > object containing key and value columns respectively to the data layout.
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:26 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I see, thanks.
> >>
> >> Let's discuss the return type - Future is not the one to use.
> >> We should return CompletionStage, CompletableFuture, or introduce our
> own
> >> interface.
> >> We agreed on the last one (custom interface) for thin clients:
> >>
> >>
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/IEP-51-Java-Thin-Client-Async-API-td48900.html
> >>
> >> I believe that for Ignite 3.0 we should have the following:
> >> public interface IgniteFuture<T> extends Future<T>, CompletionStage<T> {
> >>     // No-op.
> >> }
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:16 AM Andrey Mashenkov <
> >> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Pavel,
> >> > There are 2 PR's for the ticket[1] with two different APIs  suggested.
> >> > Please, take a look at PR [2].
> >> >
> >> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14035
> >> > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/69
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:11 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupitsyn@apache.org
> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Andrey, I can't find any async methods,
> >> > > can you please check if the changes are pushed?
> >> > >
> >> > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 10:06 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> >> > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Pavel, good point.
> >> > > > Thanks. I've added async methods.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 2:29 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> >> ptupitsyn@apache.org>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Andrey,
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > What about corresponding async APIs, do we add them now or
> later?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 8:11 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> >> > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > Hi Igniters.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > I've created a PR for Table access API [1].
> >> > > > > > This is an initial version. So, any suggestions\objections are
> >> > > > welcomed.
> >> > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to write your comments and\or examples
> >> to
> >> > the
> >> > > > PR.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Ignite-api module contains API classes, e.g. TableView classes
> >> as
> >> > > > > > projections for a table for different purposes.
> >> > > > > > Ignite-table contains dummy implementation and Example class
> >> > > explained
> >> > > > > how
> >> > > > > > it is supposed to be used.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Also, I'm still waiting for any feedback for Schema
> >> configuration
> >> > > > public
> >> > > > > > API PR [2].
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/33
> >> > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:05 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> >> > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > I've updated a PR regarding your feedback [1].
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:58 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> >> > > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> Folks,
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> I updated the IEP to contain the missing pieces; actually,
> >> most
> >> > of
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> questions here were covered by the text. Please let me know
> >> if
> >> > > there
> >> > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> something still missing or unclear.
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> чт, 31 дек. 2020 г. в 12:48, Alexey Goncharuk <
> >> > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> >> > > > > > >> >:
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> > Mikhail and Igniters,
> >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> > Thanks for your comments. The questions are reasonable,
> >> > though I
> >> > > > > think
> >> > > > > > >> all
> >> > > > > > >> > concerns are addressed by the IEP as Val mentioned. I
> will
> >> > > update
> >> > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> > document according to your questions in the following
> week
> >> or
> >> > > so,
> >> > > > so
> >> > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > >> can
> >> > > > > > >> > have a constructive discussion further.
> >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> > ср, 30 дек. 2020 г. в 11:45, Michael Cherkasov <
> >> > > > > > >> > michael.cherkasov@gmail.com>:
> >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> Hi Val, Andrey,
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> thank you for clarifying.
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> I still have a few comments.
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> 1. one table == one schema. KV vs SQL:
> >> > > > > > >> >> Looks like all agreed that KV is just a special case of
> a
> >> > > regular
> >> > > > > > table
> >> > > > > > >> >> with (blob,blob) schema.
> >> > > > > > >> >> I worry about the case when the user starts from KV case
> >> and
> >> > > > later
> >> > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > >> >> try
> >> > > > > > >> >> to expand it and try to leverage SQL for the existing KV
> >> > table
> >> > > it
> >> > > > > > >> won't be
> >> > > > > > >> >> able to do so and will require to reload data. which
> isn't
> >> > > > > convenient
> >> > > > > > >> and
> >> > > > > > >> >> sometimes not even possible. Is it possible to extract a
> >> new
> >> > > > field
> >> > > > > > from
> >> > > > > > >> >> (blob, blob) schema and apply index on it?
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> 2. Could you please also list all ways of schema
> >> definition
> >> > in
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> IEP? It
> >> > > > > > >> >> significant change and I bet the main point of this IEP,
> >> > > everyone
> >> > > > > > hates
> >> > > > > > >> >> QueryEntities, they are difficult to manage and in
> >> general,
> >> > > it's
> >> > > > > very
> >> > > > > > >> >> confusing to have a data model(schemas) and node/cluster
> >> > > > > > configuration
> >> > > > > > >> in
> >> > > > > > >> >> one place.
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> So there will be SchemaBuilder and SQL to define
> schemas,
> >> but
> >> > > > > Andrey
> >> > > > > > >> also
> >> > > > > > >> >> mentioned annotations.
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> I personally against configuration via annotations,
> while
> >> > it's
> >> > > > > > >> convenient
> >> > > > > > >> >> for development, it difficult to manage because
> different
> >> > > classes
> >> > > > > can
> >> > > > > > >> be
> >> > > > > > >> >> deployed on different clients/servers nodes and it can
> >> lead
> >> > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> unpredictable results.
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> 3. IEP doesn't mention field type changes, only drop/add
> >> > > fields.
> >> > > > > > Field
> >> > > > > > >> >> type
> >> > > > > > >> >> changes are extremely painful right now(if even
> >> possible), so
> >> > > it
> >> > > > > > would
> >> > > > > > >> be
> >> > > > > > >> >> nice if some scenarios would be supported(like
> >> int8->int16,
> >> > or
> >> > > > > > >> >> int8->String).
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> 4. got it, I thought IEP will have more details about
> the
> >> > > > > > >> implementation.
> >> > > > > > >> >> I've seen Andrey even sent benchmark results for a new
> >> > > > > serialization,
> >> > > > > > >> will
> >> > > > > > >> >> ping him about this.
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> 5. Thanks for the clarification. I had a wrong
> >> understanding
> >> > of
> >> > > > > > strick
> >> > > > > > >> >> mode.
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> вт, 29 дек. 2020 г. в 19:32, Valentin Kulichenko <
> >> > > > > > >> >> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > Hi Mike,
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > Thanks for providing your feedback. Please see my
> >> comments
> >> > > > below.
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > I would also encourage you to go through the IEP-54
> [1]
> >> -
> >> > it
> >> > > > has
> >> > > > > a
> >> > > > > > >> lot
> >> > > > > > >> >> of
> >> > > > > > >> >> > detail on the topic.
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > [1]
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > -Val
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:22 PM Michael Cherkasov <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > michael.cherkasov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > Hi all,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > I reviewed the mail thread and proposal page and I
> >> still
> >> > > > don't
> >> > > > > > >> fully
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > understand what is going to be changed, I would
> really
> >> > > > > appreciate
> >> > > > > > >> it
> >> > > > > > >> >> if
> >> > > > > > >> >> > you
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > will answer a few questions:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > 1. Are you going to leave only one schema per cache?
> >> if
> >> > so,
> >> > > > > will
> >> > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > >> >> there
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > an option to have a table with arbitrary
> objects(pure
> >> KV
> >> > > > case)?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > My opinion is that KV case should be natively
> >> supported. I
> >> > > > think
> >> > > > > > this
> >> > > > > > >> >> still
> >> > > > > > >> >> > needs to be thought over, my current view on this is
> >> that
> >> > we
> >> > > > > should
> >> > > > > > >> have
> >> > > > > > >> >> > separate APIs for KV and more generic storages. KV
> >> storage
> >> > > can
> >> > > > be
> >> > > > > > >> >> > implemented as a "table" with two BLOB fields where we
> >> will
> >> > > > store
> >> > > > > > >> >> > serialized key-value pairs. That would imply
> >> > deserialization
> >> > > on
> >> > > > > > read,
> >> > > > > > >> >> but I
> >> > > > > > >> >> > believe this is OK for KV use cases. I'm happy to hear
> >> > other
> >> > > > > ideas
> >> > > > > > >> >> though
> >> > > > > > >> >> > :)
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0 have to
> define
> >> > > schema?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > SchemaBuilder
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > and SQL only? Is there an option to put the schema
> >> > > definition
> >> > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > configuration?(I really don't like this, I would
> >> prefer
> >> > to
> >> > > > have
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > separate scripts to create schemas)
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > There will be no such thing as a static configuration
> in
> >> > the
> >> > > > > first
> >> > > > > > >> >> place.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > Tables and schemas are created in runtime. Even if
> there
> >> > is a
> >> > > > > file
> >> > > > > > >> >> provided
> >> > > > > > >> >> > on node startup, this file is only applied in the
> scope
> >> of
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > >> 'start'
> >> > > > > > >> >> > operation. All configurations will be stored in a meta
> >> > > storage
> >> > > > > > >> >> available to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > all nodes, as opposed to individual files.
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > 3. Is there a way to change field type? if yes, can
> >> it be
> >> > > > done
> >> > > > > in
> >> > > > > > >> >> > runtime?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > Absolutely! IEP-54 has a whole section about schema
> >> > > evolution.
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going to be
> >> re-worked
> >> > > too,
> >> > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> there
> >> > > > > > >> >> any
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > IEP for this?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > BinaryMarshaller as a tool for arbitrary object
> >> > serialization
> >> > > > > will
> >> > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > >> >> gone,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > but we will reuse a lot of its concept to implement an
> >> > > internal
> >> > > > > > tuple
> >> > > > > > >> >> > serialization mechanism. IEP-54 has the description of
> >> the
> >> > > > > proposed
> >> > > > > > >> data
> >> > > > > > >> >> > format.
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > 5. I don't like automatic schema evaluation when a
> new
> >> > > field
> >> > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> added
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > automatically on record put, so is there a way to
> >> > prohibit
> >> > > > this
> >> > > > > > >> >> behavior?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >  I think all schema changes should be done only
> >> > explicitly
> >> > > > > except
> >> > > > > > >> >> initial
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > schema creation.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > The way I see it is that we should have two modes:
> >> > > schema-first
> >> > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > schema-last. Schema-first means exactly what you've
> >> > > described -
> >> > > > > > >> schemas
> >> > > > > > >> >> are
> >> > > > > > >> >> > defined and updated explicitly by the user. In the
> >> > > schema-last
> >> > > > > > mode,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > the user does not deal with schemas, as they are
> >> inferred
> >> > > from
> >> > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> data
> >> > > > > > >> >> > inserted into tables. We should definitely not mix
> these
> >> > > modes
> >> > > > -
> >> > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> has
> >> > > > > > >> >> to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > be one or another. And it probably makes sense to
> >> discuss
> >> > > which
> >> > > > > > mode
> >> > > > > > >> >> should
> >> > > > > > >> >> > be the default one.
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > Thanks,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > Mike.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey Mashenkov <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Hi, Igniters.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > We all know that the current QueryEntity API is
> not
> >> > > > > convenient
> >> > > > > > >> and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > needs
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > be reworked.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema
> >> configuration
> >> > > > public
> >> > > > > > API
> >> > > > > > >> >> for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Ignite 3.0.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > New schema configuration uses Builder pattern,
> which
> >> > > looks
> >> > > > > more
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > comfortable
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > to use.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package with
> the
> >> API
> >> > > > > itself,
> >> > > > > > >> and
> >> > > > > > >> >> a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > draft
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and a test that demonstrates how the API could be
> >> used.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Please note:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with static
> >> > > factory
> >> > > > > > >> methods.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * The implementation is decoupled and can be
> easily
> >> > > > extracted
> >> > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > separate
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > module if we decide to do so.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are missed,
> >> they
> >> > > will
> >> > > > > be
> >> > > > > > >> added
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > lately
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > in separate tickes.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Index configuration extends marker interface
> that
> >> > makes
> >> > > > > > >> possible
> >> > > > > > >> >> to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Hopfully, we could add a persistent geo-indices
> >> support
> >> > > in
> >> > > > > > >> future.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Supposedly, current table schema can be changed
> >> via
> >> > > > > > >> builder-like
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See
> >> > > > > > >> >> 'TableModificationBuilder'
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > details.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have
> 'toBuilder()'
> >> > > > > converter
> >> > > > > > >> for
> >> > > > > > >> >> that
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > purpose as it is a Schema Manager responsibility
> to
> >> > > create
> >> > > > > > >> mutator
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > objects
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > from the current schema,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > but implementing the Schema manager is out of
> scope
> >> and
> >> > > > will
> >> > > > > be
> >> > > > > > >> >> > designed
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > within the next task.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Interfaces implementations are out of scope. I
> did
> >> > not
> >> > > > > intend
> >> > > > > > >> to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > merge
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > them right now, but for test/demostration
> purposes.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > It is NOT the final version and some may be
> changed
> >> > > before
> >> > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> first
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > release of course.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed with
> >> this
> >> > > > > approach
> >> > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > >> >> some
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > issues should be resolved at first.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Any thoughts or objections?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Are interfaces good enough to be merged within the
> >> > > current
> >> > > > > > >> ticket?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <
> >> > > > > > >> jury.gerzhedowich@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 2. It requires adding new types to the internal
> >> > > > > > representation,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > protocol,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > e.t.c.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 3. internal representation should be the same as
> >> we
> >> > > keep
> >> > > > > sign
> >> > > > > > >> >> types.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > So
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > will not requires more memory
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such types
> >> for
> >> > > > > platforms
> >> > > > > > >> >> which
> >> > > > > > >> >> > not
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > support unsigned types. For example, a user
> could
> >> > > derive
> >> > > > -6
> >> > > > > > >> value
> >> > > > > > >> >> in
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits
> perspective
> >> > will
> >> > > > be
> >> > > > > > >> >> right). I
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > think
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such cases,
> >> > > > especially
> >> > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> will be
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > bad
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for unsigned long when we require returns
> >> BigInteger
> >> > > > type.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix for
> >> new
> >> > > types
> >> > > > > > like
> >> > > > > > >> a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > '250u' -
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive
> >> comparison
> >> > > > logic
> >> > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > indexes
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for
> >> expressions.
> >> > I
> >> > > > > think
> >> > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> not
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > possible for the current H2 engine and probably
> >> > > possible
> >> > > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> the
> >> > > > > > >> >> new
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from anybody
> >> who
> >> > > > > involved
> >> > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > >> >> this
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > part
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > WDYT?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey Goncharuk <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0:
> >> once
> >> > we
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> actual
> >> > > > > > >> >> > type
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > information, we can make proper runtime
> >> adjustments
> >> > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> conversions
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will be
> >> just a
> >> > > bit
> >> > > > > more
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > expensive.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> >> > > > > > >> >> ptupitsyn@apache.org
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons
> >> and so
> >> > > on
> >> > > > > are
> >> > > > > > >> >> broken
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned
> >> this
> >> > > > > > somewhere
> >> > > > > > >> >> > above.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document that
> >> SQL is
> >> > > not
> >> > > > > > >> >> supported
> >> > > > > > >> >> > on
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > those
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > types,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > end of story.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey
> >> Goncharuk
> >> > <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable
> >> request. I
> >> > > > > thought
> >> > > > > > >> about
> >> > > > > > >> >> > this
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > when
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > I
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add
> >> > these
> >> > > > > types
> >> > > > > > >> right
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > away.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the
> >> > > > beginning
> >> > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > >> >> .NET
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > C++
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > :)
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually works
> as
> >> > > > > expected,
> >> > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> needs
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > some
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns are
> >> > false):
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - It's true that equality check works
> >> > > properly,
> >> > > > > but
> >> > > > > > >> for
> >> > > > > > >> >> SQL
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > range
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    queries it will break unless some
> special
> >> > care
> >> > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> taken
> >> > > > > > >> >> on
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > side:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will
> >> be
> >> > > > > converted
> >> > > > > > >> to
> >> > > > > > >> >> -1,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > which
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we don't
> have
> >> > > > unsigned
> >> > > > > > >> types
> >> > > > > > >> >> > now,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > I
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > doubt
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    works.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - There is an obvious cross-platform
> data
> >> > loss
> >> > > > > when
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > "intuitive"
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > type
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8
> >> corresponds to
> >> > > > byte
> >> > > > > > >> type in
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > .NET,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > but
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have to
> >> use
> >> > > short
> >> > > > > > type
> >> > > > > > >> in
> >> > > > > > >> >> > Java,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    will also need to take care of the
> range
> >> > check
> >> > > > > > during
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > serialization).
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > I
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    think we can even allow to try to
> >> > deserialize
> >> > > a
> >> > > > > > value
> >> > > > > > >> >> into
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > arbitrary
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > type,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    but throw an exception if the range is
> >> out
> >> > of
> >> > > > > > bounds.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once
> >> all
> >> > the
> >> > > > > > details
> >> > > > > > >> >> are
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > settled
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > here?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey
> >> Mashenkov
> >> > <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't
> >> be
> >> > > > treated
> >> > > > > > >> >> correctly
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > now
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I think we could make "true" support for
> >> > > unsigned
> >> > > > > > >> types,
> >> > > > > > >> >> but
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > they
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map
> >> uint64
> >> > to
> >> > > > > Java
> >> > > > > > >> long
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > primitive,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > but
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > BigInteger only.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64 to
> >> Java
> >> > > > long,
> >> > > > > > but
> >> > > > > > >> >> treat
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > negative
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > values in a different way to preserve
> >> correct
> >> > > > > > ordering.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > These limitations will affect only mixed
> >> > > > > environments
> >> > > > > > >> when
> >> > > > > > >> >> > .Net
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Java
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > used to access the data.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Will this solution address your issues?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel
> >> > Tupitsyn
> >> > > <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since
> the
> >> > > > > beginning
> >> > > > > > >> with
> >> > > > > > >> >> > .NET
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > C++
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > :)
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as
> cache
> >> > keys
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> values,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > as
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > fields
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > properties,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y
> >> > > clauses)
> >> > > > -
> >> > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> works
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > transparently
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the users.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats
> those
> >> > > values
> >> > > > > as
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > corresponding
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > signed
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > types.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in
> some
> >> > cases
> >> > > > > only
> >> > > > > > >> >> because
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > there
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > are
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > no
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very
> simple
> >> > > change
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > protocol
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > -
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > add
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > type
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as
> >> signed
> >> > > > > > >> >> counterparts.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey
> >> > > > Mashenkov
> >> > > > > <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java
> (bitwise
> >> > > > > > >> representation
> >> > > > > > >> >> is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > same)
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a
> >> > uByte
> >> > > > > field
> >> > > > > > >> and
> >> > > > > > >> >> map
> >> > > > > > >> >> > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > 'uint8'
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > column.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to
> "250"
> >> and
> >> > > put
> >> > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> object
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > into a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > table,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a
> single
> >> > byte
> >> > > > > > 'int8'
> >> > > > > > >> >> > column.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it
> >> to
> >> > > > > directly
> >> > > > > > >> the
> >> > > > > > >> >> Java
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > object
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > field
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8
> >> type
> >> > to
> >> > > > > Java
> >> > > > > > >> >> 'short'
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > type
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > because the one expected to see
> "250"
> >> as
> >> > a
> >> > > > > value
> >> > > > > > >> which
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > doesn't
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > fit
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > signed type.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a
> >> BigInteger
> >> > > > field
> >> > > > > in
> >> > > > > > >> >> Java.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat column
> >> value
> >> > > as
> >> > > > > Java
> >> > > > > > >> >> 'byte'
> >> > > > > > >> >> > as
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > is,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > because
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a
> negative
> >> > > value,
> >> > > > so
> >> > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> should
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > be
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > cast
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > short
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger
> for
> >> > > > uint64)
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will
> require
> >> a
> >> > > > > different
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > comparator.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM
> Pavel
> >> > > > Tupitsyn
> >> > > > > <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a
> >> good
> >> > > > idea.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the
> >> simple
> >> > > > > > approach
> >> > > > > > >> I
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > described?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM
> >> Andrey
> >> > > > > > Mashenkov
> >> > > > > > >> <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing
> range
> >> > for
> >> > > > > > unsigned
> >> > > > > > >> >> types
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > then
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > we
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > could
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > add a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on
> >> > schema
> >> > > > > level
> >> > > > > > >> >> (like
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > nullability
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > flag)
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types
> in
> >> > > > storage.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate
> >> storage
> >> > > > > > >> type-system
> >> > > > > > >> >> and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > binary
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > protocol
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of
> type
> >> > will
> >> > > > > match
> >> > > > > > 1
> >> > > > > > >> to
> >> > > > > > >> >> 1
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > with
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > storage
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (native)
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either
> have
> >> a
> >> > > > > separate
> >> > > > > > >> type
> >> > > > > > >> >> id
> >> > > > > > >> >> > or
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > treat
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > serialized
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed
> >> or
> >> > > > > unsigned
> >> > > > > > >> >> flag).
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever
> >> foresee
> >> > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> consequences
> >> > > > > > >> >> > of
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > using
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > types.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned
> >> types
> >> > > > > > perfectly
> >> > > > > > >> >> works
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > with
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > some
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > database,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite
> >> successor
> >> > > > > > confession
> >> > > > > > >> >> with
> >> > > > > > >> >> > our
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > "native"
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he can
> >> use
> >> > the
> >> > > > > power
> >> > > > > > >> of
> >> > > > > > >> >> > Ignite
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Compute
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either
> >> fail to
> >> > > use
> >> > > > > his
> >> > > > > > >> >> > unsigned
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > data
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Java
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > due
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due to
> >> > natural
> >> > > > Java
> >> > > > > > >> type
> >> > > > > > >> >> > system
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > limitations
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > e.g.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively
> supported
> >> > types
> >> > > > > with
> >> > > > > > >> >> possible
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > value
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > ranges
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is what
> >> > trade-off
> >> > > > we
> >> > > > > > >> found
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > acceptable:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > narrowing
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use types
> >> of
> >> > > wider
> >> > > > > > >> range on
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > systems
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > like
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Java.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM
> >> Igor
> >> > > > > Sapego <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so
> >> hard
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > > >> implement
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > comparison
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does
> not
> >> > seem
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > be a
> >> > > > > > >> >> big
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > issue
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > from
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > my
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned
> >> types
> >> > > from
> >> > > > > > Java
> >> > > > > > >> - I
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > think,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > if
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > user
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > uses
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to
> >> > interact
> >> > > > with
> >> > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> from
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > he
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > knows
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > what
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > he
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from
> >> > > platforms
> >> > > > > > where
> >> > > > > > >> >> they
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > have
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > native
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > support
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > widely
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET,
> where
> >> > > users
> >> > > > > > >> currently
> >> > > > > > >> >> > have
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > make a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > manual
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > casting
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using
> unsigned
> >> > > types
> >> > > > > when
> >> > > > > > >> they
> >> > > > > > >> >> > use
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Ignite.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06
> PM
> >> > Pavel
> >> > > > > > >> Tupitsyn <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for
> >> those
> >> > > > types
> >> > > > > > >> >> > (basically,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > just
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > add
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > more
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in
> Java
> >> > > > (bitwise
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > representation
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > same)
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have
> >> unsigned
> >> > > > > integers,
> >> > > > > > >> so
> >> > > > > > >> >> we
> >> > > > > > >> >> > can
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > simply
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > say
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative
> >> > comparison
> >> > > is
> >> > > > > not
> >> > > > > > >> >> > supported
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > in
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > SQL
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (equality
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40
> >> PM
> >> > > > Andrey
> >> > > > > > >> >> Mashenkov
> >> > > > > > >> >> > <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have
> >> i8 or
> >> > > > int8
> >> > > > > > >> >> instead of
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Integer.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't
> >> address
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > issue.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types
> >> should
> >> > be
> >> > > > > > portable
> >> > > > > > >> >> > across
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > different
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > systems
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type
> >> support.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is
> that
> >> > > > unsigned
> >> > > > > > >> types
> >> > > > > > >> >> > cover
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > different
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > ranges.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to
> >> > > introduce a
> >> > > > > > >> uLong.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big
> >> deal
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > add
> >> > > > > > >> uLong
> >> > > > > > >> >> > type
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > support
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > at
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > storage
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes
> and
> >> > then
> >> > > > use
> >> > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> in
> >> > > > > > >> >> e.g.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > .Net
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > only.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support
> it
> >> in
> >> > > e.g.
> >> > > > > > Java?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long
> >> range
> >> > is
> >> > > > > about
> >> > > > > > >> >> (2^-63
> >> > > > > > >> >> > ..
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 2^63)
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > uLong
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > range
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to
> >> > > restrict
> >> > > > > > range
> >> > > > > > >> to
> >> > > > > > >> >> (0
> >> > > > > > >> >> > ..
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > 2^63).
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > This
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion,
> but
> >> > > > doesn't
> >> > > > > > look
> >> > > > > > >> >> like
> >> > > > > > >> >> > a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 'real'
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uLong
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse
> >> when
> >> > the
> >> > > > > user
> >> > > > > > >> will
> >> > > > > > >> >> use
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > uByte,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > limitation
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally
> unusable.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to
> map
> >> > > > unsigned
> >> > > > > > >> types
> >> > > > > > >> >> to a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > type
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > of
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > wider
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative
> >> > values.
> >> > > > > E.g.
> >> > > > > > >> >> uLong to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > BigInteger.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive
> >> Java
> >> > > > type
> >> > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> >> Long
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > here.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > However,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > still
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong
> in 8
> >> > > bytes,
> >> > > > > but
> >> > > > > > >> >> have a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > special
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > comparator
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid
> >> > unwanted
> >> > > > > > >> >> > deserialization.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
> >> 2:04 PM
> >> > > > Pavel
> >> > > > > > >> >> Tupitsyn
> >> > > > > > >> >> > <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of
> >> > "long,
> >> > > > > short,
> >> > > > > > >> >> byte"
> >> > > > > > >> >> > in
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > protocol
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style,
> >> which
> >> > is
> >> > > > > > concise
> >> > > > > > >> >> and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > unambiguous:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
> >> 1:58
> >> > PM
> >> > > > > Igor
> >> > > > > > >> >> Sapego <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support
> that.
> >> > Also,
> >> > > > if
> >> > > > > we
> >> > > > > > >> are
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > aiming
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger
> >> > > platform-independance,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may
> >> want
> >> > to
> >> > > > > > support
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > bit-notation
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (int32,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a
> >> different
> >> > > > type
> >> > > > > on
> >> > > > > > >> >> > different
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > platforms
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often
> when
> >> > > using
> >> > > > > ODBC
> >> > > > > > >> for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > example).
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020
> at
> >> > 1:34
> >> > > PM
> >> > > > > > Pavel
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > Tupitsyn
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should
> >> support
> >> > > > > > unsigned
> >> > > > > > >> >> data
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > types:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt,
> >> > uLong
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have
> >> them,
> >> > > but
> >> > > > > many
> >> > > > > > >> >> other
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > languages
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > do,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing
> >> > number
> >> > > > of
> >> > > > > > thin
> >> > > > > > >> >> > clients
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > this
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > important.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in
> >> current
> >> > > > > > Ignite.NET
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > implementation
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > store
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed
> internally,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge
> >> pain
> >> > > when
> >> > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> comes
> >> > > > > > >> >> to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > metadata,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > binary
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to
> >> > deserialize
> >> > > > int
> >> > > > > as
> >> > > > > > >> uint
> >> > > > > > >> >> > when
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > you
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > have
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > class,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> BinaryObject.GetField)
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020
> >> at
> >> > > 12:28
> >> > > > > PM
> >> > > > > > >> >> Andrey
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Mashenkov <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both
> >> > > > serializers
> >> > > > > > use
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > reflection
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will
> >> allow
> >> > > > users
> >> > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > configure
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > static
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > along
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we
> >> still
> >> > > need
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> validate
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > user
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > classes
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > client
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema
> in
> >> > the
> >> > > > grid
> >> > > > > > >> and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > reflection
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > only
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few
> >> > > articles
> >> > > > > on
> >> > > > > > >> the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > internet
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > on
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > how
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > enable
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task
> >> for
> >> > > > > > supporting
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > GraalVM,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > maybe
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > someone
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with
> >> GraalVM
> >> > > will
> >> > > > > > >> suggest a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > solution
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proper
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit
> >> later.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround
> is
> >> > > found,
> >> > > > we
> >> > > > > > >> could
> >> > > > > > >> >> > allow
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > users
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > write
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > own
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I
> >> don't
> >> > > > think
> >> > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> is
> >> > > > > > >> >> a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > good
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > idea
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > expose
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > any
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the
> >> public.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24,
> >> 2020 at
> >> > > > 2:55
> >> > > > > AM
> >> > > > > > >> >> Denis
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Magda <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks
> for
> >> > the
> >> > > > > > update,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the
> >> > > > serializers
> >> > > > > > >> take
> >> > > > > > >> >> into
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > consideration
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > native-image-generation
> >> > > > > > >> feature of
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > GraalVM?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current
> >> > binary
> >> > > > > > >> >> marshaller,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > we
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > can't
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > even
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > generate
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code
> using
> >> > our
> >> > > > thin
> >> > > > > > >> client
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > APIs.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23,
> >> 2020
> >> > at
> >> > > > > 4:39
> >> > > > > > AM
> >> > > > > > >> >> > Andrey
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Mashenkov
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to
> >> > continue
> >> > > > > > >> discussion
> >> > > > > > >> >> of
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > IEP-54
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone
> >> who
> >> > is
> >> > > > > > >> interested
> >> > > > > > >> >> > had a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > chance
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > get
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not
> >> > > hesitate
> >> > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> ask
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > questions
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > share
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > your
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared
> a
> >> > > > prototype
> >> > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > serializer
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > [2]
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > data
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the
> proposal.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I
> >> > > compared
> >> > > > 2
> >> > > > > > >> >> approaches
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > (de)serialize
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java
> >> > > > > reflection/unsafe
> >> > > > > > >> API
> >> > > > > > >> >> and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > similar
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > one
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second
> >> one
> >> > > > > > generates
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > serializer
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > particular
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > user
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library
> >> for
> >> > > > > > >> compilation.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one
> shows
> >> > > better
> >> > > > > > >> results
> >> > > > > > >> >> in
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > benchmarks.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can
> >> go
> >> > > with
> >> > > > it
> >> > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > >> >> > default
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > serializer
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation
> >> as a
> >> > > > > > fallback
> >> > > > > > >> if
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > someone
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > issues
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a
> >> number
> >> > of
> >> > > > > tasks
> >> > > > > > >> >> under
> >> > > > > > >> >> > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > umbrella
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ticket
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going
> >> to
> >> > > > create
> >> > > > > > more
> >> > > > > > >> >> > tickets
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > manager
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> implementation,
> >> but
> >> > > > would
> >> > > > > > >> like
> >> > > > > > >> >> to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > clarify
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > some
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > details.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought
> >> > > schemaManager
> >> > > > > on
> >> > > > > > >> each
> >> > > > > > >> >> > node
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > should
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > held:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local
> >> mapping
> >> > of
> >> > > > > > "schema
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > version"
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > <-->
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > validated
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > local
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2.
> >> Cluster-wide
> >> > > > schema
> >> > > > > > >> changes
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > history.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client
> >> side.
> >> > > > > Before
> >> > > > > > >> any
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > key-value
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > operation
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a
> >> given
> >> > > > > > key-value
> >> > > > > > >> >> pair.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no
> >> > > > > > local-mapping
> >> > > > > > >> >> exists
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > given
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide
> >> schema
> >> > > > has a
> >> > > > > > >> more
> >> > > > > > >> >> > recent
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > version
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be
> >> validated
> >> > > > > against
> >> > > > > > >> the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > latest
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > version
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > local
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> updated/actualized.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object
> >> > doesn't
> >> > > > fit
> >> > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > latest
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > depends
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either
> >> fail
> >> > the
> >> > > > > > >> operation
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > ('strict'
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > mode)
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > new
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a
> >> new
> >> > > > schema
> >> > > > > > >> version
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > should
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > be
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > propagated
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server
> >> side
> >> > we
> >> > > > > > usually
> >> > > > > > >> >> have
> >> > > > > > >> >> > no
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > key-value
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > classes
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema
> change
> >> > > > history
> >> > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > available
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > tuple
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > has
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible
> >> to
> >> > > > upgrade
> >> > > > > > any
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > received
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > tuple
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > last
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could
> >> allow
> >> > > > nodes
> >> > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> send
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > key-value
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > pairs
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't
> >> > receive a
> >> > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > >> >> update
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > yet)
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > without
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > reverting
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node
> >> with
> >> > > > newer
> >> > > > > > >> >> classes.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val,
> Ivan
> >> did
> >> > > you
> >> > > > > > mean
> >> > > > > > >> the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > same?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep
> 17,
> >> > 2020
> >> > > at
> >> > > > > > 9:21
> >> > > > > > >> AM
> >> > > > > > >> >> > Ivan
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Pavlukhin
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do
> not
> >> > > ignore
> >> > > > > > >> history.
> >> > > > > > >> >> We
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > had
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > thread
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > many
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We
> can
> >> > > resume
> >> > > > > it.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10
> >> 0:08
> >> > > > > > GMT+03:00,
> >> > > > > > >> >> Denis
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Magda
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes
> >> > sense,
> >> > > > > > thanks
> >> > > > > > >> for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > explaining.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that
> >> we
> >> > > need
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> have a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > separate
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > discussion
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> >> terms
> >> > > > > > >> substitution.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > I'll
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > appreciate
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > if
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > you
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing
> >> > pointers
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > any
> >> > > > > > >> >> > relevant
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > IEPs
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > reasoning
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue,
> Sep
> >> 8,
> >> > > 2020
> >> > > > > at
> >> > > > > > >> 6:01
> >> > > > > > >> >> PM
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Valentin
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess
> the
> >> > > > wording
> >> > > > > in
> >> > > > > > >> the
> >> > > > > > >> >> IEP
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > little
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > bit
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you
> >> > should
> >> > > > not
> >> > > > > > >> create
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > nested
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > POJOs,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > but
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > rather
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single
> POJO
> >> > that
> >> > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> mapped
> >> > > > > > >> >> to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > particular
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are
> >> not
> >> > > > > > supported.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is
> >> this
> >> > > > > correct?
> >> > > > > > >> >> Please
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > let
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > me
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > know
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > if
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I'm
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > missing
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for
> the
> >> > > "cache"
> >> > > > > > >> term, I
> >> > > > > > >> >> > agree
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > that
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we
> can
> >> > > > replace
> >> > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> with.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > "Table"
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > tightly
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is
> >> > optional
> >> > > in
> >> > > > > our
> >> > > > > > >> >> case.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > Do
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > you
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > want
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > create a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about
> this?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue,
> >> Sep 8,
> >> > > > 2020
> >> > > > > at
> >> > > > > > >> >> 4:37 PM
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Denis
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Magda <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've
> >> checked
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > IEP
> >> > > > > > >> again
> >> > > > > > >> >> > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > have a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > few
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > questions.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> Arbitrary
> >> > > nested
> >> > > > > > >> objects
> >> > > > > > >> >> and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > collections
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > are
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > not
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested
> >> > POJOs
> >> > > > > should
> >> > > > > > >> >> either
> >> > > > > > >> >> > be
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > inlined
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > into
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could
> you
> >> > > > provide a
> >> > > > > > DDL
> >> > > > > > >> >> code
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > snippet
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > showing
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > how
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed
> >> to
> >> > > work?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we
> >> keep
> >> > > > using
> >> > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> terms
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > "cache"
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> right
> >> > time
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > > >> discuss
> >> > > > > > >> >> an
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > alternate
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > name
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> Personally,
> >> > the
> >> > > > > > "table"
> >> > > > > > >> >> > should
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > stay
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> considering
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL
> >> is
> >> > one
> >> > > > of
> >> > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > primary
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > APIs
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > out-of-the-box.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon,
> >> Sep
> >> > 7,
> >> > > > 2020
> >> > > > > > at
> >> > > > > > >> >> 12:26
> >> > > > > > >> >> > PM
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see
> >> your
> >> > > > > point. I
> >> > > > > > >> >> agree
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > that
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > with
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > automatic
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> schema-last
> >> > > > > > >> territory.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> Actually,
> >> > if
> >> > > we
> >> > > > > > >> support
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > automatic
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > evolution,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> creating a
> >> > > > cache
> >> > > > > > >> without
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > schema
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > inferring
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> insert.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other
> >> > words,
> >> > > we
> >> > > > > can
> >> > > > > > >> have
> >> > > > > > >> >> > both
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> Alexey,
> >> > what
> >> > > do
> >> > > > > you
> >> > > > > > >> >> think?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On
> Mon,
> >> Sep
> >> > > 7,
> >> > > > > 2020
> >> > > > > > >> at
> >> > > > > > >> >> 5:59
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > AM
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Alexey
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> Ivan,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> Thank
> >> > you,
> >> > > I
> >> > > > > got
> >> > > > > > >> your
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > concern
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > now.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > As
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> > > terminology,
> >> > > > I
> >> > > > > am
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > absolutely
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > fine
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the
> >> > > approach
> >> > > > > > best.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > Dynamic
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > or
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > evolving
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> > > corresponding
> >> > > > > > >> changes
> >> > > > > > >> >> to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > IEP
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > once
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > settle
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн,
> 7
> >> > сент.
> >> > > > > 2020
> >> > > > > > >> г. в
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > 11:33,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Ivan
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> vololo100@gmail.com
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi
> >> Val,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> Thank
> >> > you
> >> > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> your
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > answer!
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My
> >> > > > > > understanding
> >> > > > > > >> is
> >> > > > > > >> >> a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > little
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > bit
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > different.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > definitely
> >> > > > > > >> should be
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > possible.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > But
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > see
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > main
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> schema
> >> > is
> >> > > > > > >> updated".
> >> > > > > > >> >> I
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > treat a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > common
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > SQL
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> and
> >> > data
> >> > > > > > >> >> manipulation
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > operations
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > are
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > clearly
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > interesting
> >> > > > > > >> >> > capabilities,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > e.g.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > preventing
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > mistaken
> >> > > > data
> >> > > > > > >> >> > operations,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > restricting
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > user
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> schema.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> >> > > > > Schema-first
> >> > > > > > >> means
> >> > > > > > >> >> > that
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > exists
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> >> > > > compliant
> >> > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > >> >> it -
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > that's
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > exactly
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > what
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A
> >> > > > schema-last
> >> > > > > > >> >> approach
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > mentioned
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > also
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> exists,
> >> > > but
> >> > > > > it
> >> > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > inferred
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > from
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > data.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > proposing
> >> > > > > > >> approach?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> And
> >> I
> >> > > would
> >> > > > > > like
> >> > > > > > >> to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > say,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > that
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > my
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > main
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > concern
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> about
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > terminology.
> >> > > > > > And
> >> > > > > > >> I
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > suppose
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > if
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > confuses
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > me
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > confused
> >> > > as
> >> > > > > > >> well. My
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > feeling
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > closer
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> may
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > evolving
> >> > > > > > schema".
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> [1]
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > >
> >> > >
> >> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > 2020-09-07
> >> > > > > 0:47
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > GMT+03:00,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> Hi
> >> > > Ivan,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> I
> >> > don't
> >> > > > see
> >> > > > > > an
> >> > > > > > >> >> issue
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > with
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > that.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> >> > advance
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > > all
> >> > > > > > >> >> the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > stored
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > data
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > compliant
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> what
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> is
> >> > > > > proposed.
> >> > > > > > >> There
> >> > > > > > >> >> > are
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > no
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > restrictions
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> >> the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> schema.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> >> -Val
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> On
> >> > Sat,
> >> > > > Sep
> >> > > > > > 5,
> >> > > > > > >> >> 2020
> >> > > > > > >> >> > at
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > 9:52
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > PM
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ivan
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > Alexey,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> I
> >> > am a
> >> > > > > > little
> >> > > > > > >> bit
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > confused
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> conforms
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> to a
> >> > > > > survey
> >> > > > > > >> [1]
> >> > > > > > >> >> (see
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > part
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > X
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Semi
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Structured
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > really
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> a
> >> > > > "dynamic
> >> > > > > > >> >> schema"
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > approach
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > as a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > kind
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> [1]
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > >
> >> > >
> >> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > 2020-09-02
> >> > > > > > >> 1:53
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > GMT+03:00,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Denis
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > > > However,
> >> > > > > > >> could
> >> > > > > > >> >> > you
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > please
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > ORM?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > Is
> >> > > > > there
> >> > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > >> use
> >> > > > > > >> >> > case
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > (I
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> haven't
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > seen
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > one
> >> > > > so
> >> > > > > > >> far)?
> >> > > > > > >> >> If
> >> > > > > > >> >> > so,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > what
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > support
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > this?
> >> > > > > In
> >> > > > > > my
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> already
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > have.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > Am
> >> > > I
> >> > > > > > >> missing
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > something?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > Good
> >> > > > > > point,
> >> > > > > > >> >> yes,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > if
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > all
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > ORM
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > > > > internally,
> >> > > > > > >> >> then
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > they
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > can
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > easily
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > translate
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> INSERT/UPDATE
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > statement
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > lists
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > all
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> Luckily,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > our
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > Spring
> >> > > > > > Data
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > integration
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > already
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > based
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > APIs
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > needs
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > to
> >> > > be
> >> > > > > > >> improved
> >> > > > > > >> >> > once
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> would
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > solve
> >> > > > a
> >> > > > > > ton
> >> > > > > > >> of
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > usability
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > issues.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > I
> >> > > > would
> >> > > > > > >> revise
> >> > > > > > >> >> the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Hibernate
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > integration
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> dev
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > phase.
> >> > > > > > Can't
> >> > > > > > >> >> say
> >> > > > > > >> >> > if
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > it's
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > used
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > lot
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > > getting
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > traction
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > sure.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > > @Michael
> >> > > > > > >> >> Pollind,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > I'll
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > loop
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > you
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > long
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> working
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > >> support
> >> > > > > > >> >> for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Micornaut
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Data
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/
> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > came
> >> > > > > > across
> >> > > > > > >> >> some
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > challenges.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Just
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > watch
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > That's
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > coming
> >> > > > > in
> >> > > > > > >> >> Ignite
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > 3.0.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > -
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > Denis
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > On
> >> > > > Mon,
> >> > > > > > Aug
> >> > > > > > >> 31,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > 2020
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > at
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > 5:11
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > Hi
> >> > > > > Denis,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > > > Generally
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > speaking, I
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > believe
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> natively
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > > > addresses
> >> > > > > > >> the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > issue
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > if
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > duplicate
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > because
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > > schema
> >> > > > > > >> will be
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > created
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > cache,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> happens
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> now.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > > > > Basically,
> >> > > > > > >> the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > schema
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > define
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > whether
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > not,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > and
> >> > > > > which
> >> > > > > > >> >> fields
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > are
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > included
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > case
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > would
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > have
> >> > > > > must
> >> > > > > > >> be
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > compliant
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > this,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > so
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > with
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > data
> >> > > > as
> >> > > > > > >> with a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > set
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > of
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > records,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > rather
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > > > However,
> >> > > > > > >> could
> >> > > > > > >> >> > you
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > please
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > ORM?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > Is
> >> > > > > there
> >> > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > >> use
> >> > > > > > >> >> > case
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > (I
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> haven't
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > seen
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > one
> >> > > > so
> >> > > > > > >> far)?
> >> > > > > > >> >> If
> >> > > > > > >> >> > so,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > what
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > support
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > this?
> >> > > > > In
> >> > > > > > my
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> already
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > have.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > Am
> >> > > I
> >> > > > > > >> missing
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > something?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > -Val
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > On
> >> > > > Mon,
> >> > > > > > Aug
> >> > > > > > >> >> 31,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > 2020
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > at
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > 2:08
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > Val,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > I
> >> > > > > would
> >> > > > > > >> >> propose
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > adding
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > another
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > point
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > list
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> which
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > > related
> >> > > > > > >> to
> >> > > > > > >> >> the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > ORM
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > frameworks
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > such
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> Hibernate,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > Micronaut
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > many
> >> > > > > > >> others.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> Presently,
> >> > > > > > >> >> the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > storage
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > engine
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requires
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> objects
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > from
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > value
> >> > > > > > >> ones
> >> > > > > > >> >> that
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > complicate
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> frameworks
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> (especially
> >> > > > > > >> >> if
> >> > > > > > >> >> > a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > key
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > object
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > comprises
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > More
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> can
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > be
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > found
> >> > > > > > >> here:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > It
> >> > > > > will
> >> > > > > > >> be
> >> > > > > > >> >> nice
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > if
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > new
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> with
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > > single
> >> > > > > > >> >> entity
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > object
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > when
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > comes
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > split
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > > entity
> >> > > > > > >> into
> >> > > > > > >> >> a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > key
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > value.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Just
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > want
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > 3.0
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > has
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > all
> >> > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > essential
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > public
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > APIs
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> > > single-entity
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > based
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > > > approach.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > What
> >> > > > > do
> >> > > > > > >> you
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > think?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > -
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > Denis
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > On
> >> > > > > Fri,
> >> > > > > > >> Aug
> >> > > > > > >> >> 28,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > 2020
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > at
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > 3:50
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > PM
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> Igniters,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > One
> >> > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > >> the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > big
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > changes
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proposed
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> so-called
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> "schema-first
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > approach".
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > To
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > add
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > started
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> writing
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > IEP
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> this
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > change:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > Please
> >> > > > > > >> >> take a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > look
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > let
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > me
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > know
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> immediate
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> thoughts,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> suggestions,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > or
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > objections.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > -Val
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> --
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> Best
> >> > > > > > regards,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> Ivan
> >> > > > > > Pavlukhin
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> Best
> >> > > > regards,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> Ivan
> >> > > > > Pavlukhin
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best
> regards,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan
> Pavlukhin
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V.
> >> Mashenkov
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V.
> Mashenkov
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > --
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > --
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Best regards,
> >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>]

Hi Igniters,

I've create a ticket [1] for large row support.

We use 2-bytes offsets for varlen fields that are supposed to be large
enough.
AFAIK, some users use multi-MB values and 64k per Row looks like a strong
limitation.

So, we have either to increase offset_size up to 4-bytes or use some
advanced mechanics for compression or adaptive offset_size.

1. Increasing offset size may add overhead for keys like next:
class Key {
   int id;
   String str; // Some short string code.
}

2. Compression will require table to be decompressed on every varlen column
access, e.g. for comparison purposes while index scan.
Also, we may need to pre-calculate compressed table size to avoid buffer
copying (shrinking or extending) during row assembling.

3. Adaptive offset_size implies row size estimation.
We already do to reduce the probability of buffer expanding, but we need a
high margin for this purpose.
'String' values size is a hard part as String character may be encoded into
1-4 bytes depending on Charset.

Usually, a user don't want to care about Column length limitation and chars
collation.
So, we can expect a Java default behavior will be used in most cases:
'unlimited' string size with up to 4-bytes characters support.

Possible strategies
3.1 Introduce 'Collation' for string and validate all the chars on row
assembling and rely on the user limited column length.
Thus, we can use varlen limits (+ collation for strings) to estimate row
size and pre-calculate offset_size to keep it within the schema.
3.2 Introduce more row flags for different offset sizes (byte, short, int)
and calculate row size right before assembling for choosing appropriate
offset_size.
Heuristics for strings using collation is also applicable here and keep
algorithm complexity independent from the data length, but the schema only.

I like an approach '3.2' because we already estimate row size.
Any thoughts?

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14743

On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 7:25 PM Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Igniters,
> I've prepared PR [1] with Public Table API for final review.
>
> Main points
> There are 4 projection interfaces over Table for different use-cases
> (Plain record vs Key-Value and POJO vs Binary object) declaring synchronous
> and asynchronous methods.
> Async method returns IgniteFuture as there is no consensus on IgniteFuture
> vs JDK CompletableFuture yet.
> API implementation is incomplete, it just an example of how it could be
> done and will be implemented in future tasks.
> Tuple/TupleAssembler renamed to Row/RowAssembler. Now Tuple is just a
> dictionary representing a subset of columns, while Row is a schema-aware
> object containing key and value columns respectively to the data layout.
>
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:26 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> I see, thanks.
>>
>> Let's discuss the return type - Future is not the one to use.
>> We should return CompletionStage, CompletableFuture, or introduce our own
>> interface.
>> We agreed on the last one (custom interface) for thin clients:
>>
>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/IEP-51-Java-Thin-Client-Async-API-td48900.html
>>
>> I believe that for Ignite 3.0 we should have the following:
>> public interface IgniteFuture<T> extends Future<T>, CompletionStage<T> {
>>     // No-op.
>> }
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:16 AM Andrey Mashenkov <
>> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Pavel,
>> > There are 2 PR's for the ticket[1] with two different APIs  suggested.
>> > Please, take a look at PR [2].
>> >
>> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14035
>> > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/69
>> >
>> > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:11 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Andrey, I can't find any async methods,
>> > > can you please check if the changes are pushed?
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 10:06 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
>> > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Pavel, good point.
>> > > > Thanks. I've added async methods.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 2:29 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
>> ptupitsyn@apache.org>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Andrey,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > What about corresponding async APIs, do we add them now or later?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 8:11 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
>> > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Hi Igniters.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I've created a PR for Table access API [1].
>> > > > > > This is an initial version. So, any suggestions\objections are
>> > > > welcomed.
>> > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to write your comments and\or examples
>> to
>> > the
>> > > > PR.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Ignite-api module contains API classes, e.g. TableView classes
>> as
>> > > > > > projections for a table for different purposes.
>> > > > > > Ignite-table contains dummy implementation and Example class
>> > > explained
>> > > > > how
>> > > > > > it is supposed to be used.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Also, I'm still waiting for any feedback for Schema
>> configuration
>> > > > public
>> > > > > > API PR [2].
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/33
>> > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:05 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
>> > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I've updated a PR regarding your feedback [1].
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:58 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
>> > > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> Folks,
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> I updated the IEP to contain the missing pieces; actually,
>> most
>> > of
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > >> questions here were covered by the text. Please let me know
>> if
>> > > there
>> > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> something still missing or unclear.
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> чт, 31 дек. 2020 г. в 12:48, Alexey Goncharuk <
>> > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
>> > > > > > >> >:
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> > Mikhail and Igniters,
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> > Thanks for your comments. The questions are reasonable,
>> > though I
>> > > > > think
>> > > > > > >> all
>> > > > > > >> > concerns are addressed by the IEP as Val mentioned. I will
>> > > update
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> > document according to your questions in the following week
>> or
>> > > so,
>> > > > so
>> > > > > > we
>> > > > > > >> can
>> > > > > > >> > have a constructive discussion further.
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> > ср, 30 дек. 2020 г. в 11:45, Michael Cherkasov <
>> > > > > > >> > michael.cherkasov@gmail.com>:
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> Hi Val, Andrey,
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> thank you for clarifying.
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> I still have a few comments.
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> 1. one table == one schema. KV vs SQL:
>> > > > > > >> >> Looks like all agreed that KV is just a special case of a
>> > > regular
>> > > > > > table
>> > > > > > >> >> with (blob,blob) schema.
>> > > > > > >> >> I worry about the case when the user starts from KV case
>> and
>> > > > later
>> > > > > > will
>> > > > > > >> >> try
>> > > > > > >> >> to expand it and try to leverage SQL for the existing KV
>> > table
>> > > it
>> > > > > > >> won't be
>> > > > > > >> >> able to do so and will require to reload data. which isn't
>> > > > > convenient
>> > > > > > >> and
>> > > > > > >> >> sometimes not even possible. Is it possible to extract a
>> new
>> > > > field
>> > > > > > from
>> > > > > > >> >> (blob, blob) schema and apply index on it?
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> 2. Could you please also list all ways of schema
>> definition
>> > in
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > >> IEP? It
>> > > > > > >> >> significant change and I bet the main point of this IEP,
>> > > everyone
>> > > > > > hates
>> > > > > > >> >> QueryEntities, they are difficult to manage and in
>> general,
>> > > it's
>> > > > > very
>> > > > > > >> >> confusing to have a data model(schemas) and node/cluster
>> > > > > > configuration
>> > > > > > >> in
>> > > > > > >> >> one place.
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> So there will be SchemaBuilder and SQL to define schemas,
>> but
>> > > > > Andrey
>> > > > > > >> also
>> > > > > > >> >> mentioned annotations.
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> I personally against configuration via annotations, while
>> > it's
>> > > > > > >> convenient
>> > > > > > >> >> for development, it difficult to manage because different
>> > > classes
>> > > > > can
>> > > > > > >> be
>> > > > > > >> >> deployed on different clients/servers nodes and it can
>> lead
>> > to
>> > > > > > >> >> unpredictable results.
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> 3. IEP doesn't mention field type changes, only drop/add
>> > > fields.
>> > > > > > Field
>> > > > > > >> >> type
>> > > > > > >> >> changes are extremely painful right now(if even
>> possible), so
>> > > it
>> > > > > > would
>> > > > > > >> be
>> > > > > > >> >> nice if some scenarios would be supported(like
>> int8->int16,
>> > or
>> > > > > > >> >> int8->String).
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> 4. got it, I thought IEP will have more details about the
>> > > > > > >> implementation.
>> > > > > > >> >> I've seen Andrey even sent benchmark results for a new
>> > > > > serialization,
>> > > > > > >> will
>> > > > > > >> >> ping him about this.
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> 5. Thanks for the clarification. I had a wrong
>> understanding
>> > of
>> > > > > > strick
>> > > > > > >> >> mode.
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> вт, 29 дек. 2020 г. в 19:32, Valentin Kulichenko <
>> > > > > > >> >> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > Hi Mike,
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > Thanks for providing your feedback. Please see my
>> comments
>> > > > below.
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > I would also encourage you to go through the IEP-54 [1]
>> -
>> > it
>> > > > has
>> > > > > a
>> > > > > > >> lot
>> > > > > > >> >> of
>> > > > > > >> >> > detail on the topic.
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > [1]
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > -Val
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:22 PM Michael Cherkasov <
>> > > > > > >> >> > michael.cherkasov@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > Hi all,
>> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > I reviewed the mail thread and proposal page and I
>> still
>> > > > don't
>> > > > > > >> fully
>> > > > > > >> >> > > understand what is going to be changed, I would really
>> > > > > appreciate
>> > > > > > >> it
>> > > > > > >> >> if
>> > > > > > >> >> > you
>> > > > > > >> >> > > will answer a few questions:
>> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > 1. Are you going to leave only one schema per cache?
>> if
>> > so,
>> > > > > will
>> > > > > > be
>> > > > > > >> >> there
>> > > > > > >> >> > > an option to have a table with arbitrary objects(pure
>> KV
>> > > > case)?
>> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > My opinion is that KV case should be natively
>> supported. I
>> > > > think
>> > > > > > this
>> > > > > > >> >> still
>> > > > > > >> >> > needs to be thought over, my current view on this is
>> that
>> > we
>> > > > > should
>> > > > > > >> have
>> > > > > > >> >> > separate APIs for KV and more generic storages. KV
>> storage
>> > > can
>> > > > be
>> > > > > > >> >> > implemented as a "table" with two BLOB fields where we
>> will
>> > > > store
>> > > > > > >> >> > serialized key-value pairs. That would imply
>> > deserialization
>> > > on
>> > > > > > read,
>> > > > > > >> >> but I
>> > > > > > >> >> > believe this is OK for KV use cases. I'm happy to hear
>> > other
>> > > > > ideas
>> > > > > > >> >> though
>> > > > > > >> >> > :)
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0 have to define
>> > > schema?
>> > > > > > >> >> > SchemaBuilder
>> > > > > > >> >> > > and SQL only? Is there an option to put the schema
>> > > definition
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > configuration?(I really don't like this, I would
>> prefer
>> > to
>> > > > have
>> > > > > > >> >> > > separate scripts to create schemas)
>> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > There will be no such thing as a static configuration in
>> > the
>> > > > > first
>> > > > > > >> >> place.
>> > > > > > >> >> > Tables and schemas are created in runtime. Even if there
>> > is a
>> > > > > file
>> > > > > > >> >> provided
>> > > > > > >> >> > on node startup, this file is only applied in the scope
>> of
>> > > the
>> > > > > > >> 'start'
>> > > > > > >> >> > operation. All configurations will be stored in a meta
>> > > storage
>> > > > > > >> >> available to
>> > > > > > >> >> > all nodes, as opposed to individual files.
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > 3. Is there a way to change field type? if yes, can
>> it be
>> > > > done
>> > > > > in
>> > > > > > >> >> > runtime?
>> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > Absolutely! IEP-54 has a whole section about schema
>> > > evolution.
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going to be
>> re-worked
>> > > too,
>> > > > is
>> > > > > > >> there
>> > > > > > >> >> any
>> > > > > > >> >> > > IEP for this?
>> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > BinaryMarshaller as a tool for arbitrary object
>> > serialization
>> > > > > will
>> > > > > > be
>> > > > > > >> >> gone,
>> > > > > > >> >> > but we will reuse a lot of its concept to implement an
>> > > internal
>> > > > > > tuple
>> > > > > > >> >> > serialization mechanism. IEP-54 has the description of
>> the
>> > > > > proposed
>> > > > > > >> data
>> > > > > > >> >> > format.
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > 5. I don't like automatic schema evaluation when a new
>> > > field
>> > > > is
>> > > > > > >> added
>> > > > > > >> >> > > automatically on record put, so is there a way to
>> > prohibit
>> > > > this
>> > > > > > >> >> behavior?
>> > > > > > >> >> > >  I think all schema changes should be done only
>> > explicitly
>> > > > > except
>> > > > > > >> >> initial
>> > > > > > >> >> > > schema creation.
>> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > The way I see it is that we should have two modes:
>> > > schema-first
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > schema-last. Schema-first means exactly what you've
>> > > described -
>> > > > > > >> schemas
>> > > > > > >> >> are
>> > > > > > >> >> > defined and updated explicitly by the user. In the
>> > > schema-last
>> > > > > > mode,
>> > > > > > >> >> > the user does not deal with schemas, as they are
>> inferred
>> > > from
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> data
>> > > > > > >> >> > inserted into tables. We should definitely not mix these
>> > > modes
>> > > > -
>> > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> has
>> > > > > > >> >> to
>> > > > > > >> >> > be one or another. And it probably makes sense to
>> discuss
>> > > which
>> > > > > > mode
>> > > > > > >> >> should
>> > > > > > >> >> > be the default one.
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > Thanks,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > Mike.
>> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey Mashenkov <
>> > > > > > >> >> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
>> > > > > > >> >> > > >:
>> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > Hi, Igniters.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > We all know that the current QueryEntity API is not
>> > > > > convenient
>> > > > > > >> and
>> > > > > > >> >> > needs
>> > > > > > >> >> > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > be reworked.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema
>> configuration
>> > > > public
>> > > > > > API
>> > > > > > >> >> for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > Ignite 3.0.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > New schema configuration uses Builder pattern, which
>> > > looks
>> > > > > more
>> > > > > > >> >> > > comfortable
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > to use.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package with the
>> API
>> > > > > itself,
>> > > > > > >> and
>> > > > > > >> >> a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > draft
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > and a test that demonstrates how the API could be
>> used.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > Please note:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with static
>> > > factory
>> > > > > > >> methods.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > * The implementation is decoupled and can be easily
>> > > > extracted
>> > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > separate
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > module if we decide to do so.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are missed,
>> they
>> > > will
>> > > > > be
>> > > > > > >> added
>> > > > > > >> >> > > lately
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > in separate tickes.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Index configuration extends marker interface that
>> > makes
>> > > > > > >> possible
>> > > > > > >> >> to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > Hopfully, we could add a persistent geo-indices
>> support
>> > > in
>> > > > > > >> future.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Supposedly, current table schema can be changed
>> via
>> > > > > > >> builder-like
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See
>> > > > > > >> >> 'TableModificationBuilder'
>> > > > > > >> >> > > for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > details.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have 'toBuilder()'
>> > > > > converter
>> > > > > > >> for
>> > > > > > >> >> that
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > purpose as it is a Schema Manager responsibility to
>> > > create
>> > > > > > >> mutator
>> > > > > > >> >> > > objects
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > from the current schema,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > but implementing the Schema manager is out of scope
>> and
>> > > > will
>> > > > > be
>> > > > > > >> >> > designed
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > within the next task.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Interfaces implementations are out of scope. I did
>> > not
>> > > > > intend
>> > > > > > >> to
>> > > > > > >> >> > merge
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > them right now, but for test/demostration purposes.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > It is NOT the final version and some may be changed
>> > > before
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> first
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > release of course.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed with
>> this
>> > > > > approach
>> > > > > > or
>> > > > > > >> >> some
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > issues should be resolved at first.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > Any thoughts or objections?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > Are interfaces good enough to be merged within the
>> > > current
>> > > > > > >> ticket?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
>> > > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <
>> > > > > > >> jury.gerzhedowich@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 2. It requires adding new types to the internal
>> > > > > > representation,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > protocol,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > e.t.c.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 3. internal representation should be the same as
>> we
>> > > keep
>> > > > > sign
>> > > > > > >> >> types.
>> > > > > > >> >> > So
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > will not requires more memory
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such types
>> for
>> > > > > platforms
>> > > > > > >> >> which
>> > > > > > >> >> > not
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > support unsigned types. For example, a user could
>> > > derive
>> > > > -6
>> > > > > > >> value
>> > > > > > >> >> in
>> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits perspective
>> > will
>> > > > be
>> > > > > > >> >> right). I
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > think
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such cases,
>> > > > especially
>> > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> will be
>> > > > > > >> >> > > bad
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for unsigned long when we require returns
>> BigInteger
>> > > > type.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix for
>> new
>> > > types
>> > > > > > like
>> > > > > > >> a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > '250u' -
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive
>> comparison
>> > > > logic
>> > > > > > for
>> > > > > > >> >> > indexes
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for
>> expressions.
>> > I
>> > > > > think
>> > > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> not
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > possible for the current H2 engine and probably
>> > > possible
>> > > > > for
>> > > > > > >> the
>> > > > > > >> >> new
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from anybody
>> who
>> > > > > involved
>> > > > > > in
>> > > > > > >> >> this
>> > > > > > >> >> > > part
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > WDYT?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey Goncharuk <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0:
>> once
>> > we
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > >> actual
>> > > > > > >> >> > type
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > information, we can make proper runtime
>> adjustments
>> > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> conversions
>> > > > > > >> >> > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will be
>> just a
>> > > bit
>> > > > > more
>> > > > > > >> >> > > expensive.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <
>> > > > > > >> >> ptupitsyn@apache.org
>> > > > > > >> >> > >:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons
>> and so
>> > > on
>> > > > > are
>> > > > > > >> >> broken
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned
>> this
>> > > > > > somewhere
>> > > > > > >> >> > above.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document that
>> SQL is
>> > > not
>> > > > > > >> >> supported
>> > > > > > >> >> > on
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > those
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > types,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > end of story.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey
>> Goncharuk
>> > <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable
>> request. I
>> > > > > thought
>> > > > > > >> about
>> > > > > > >> >> > this
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > when
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > I
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add
>> > these
>> > > > > types
>> > > > > > >> right
>> > > > > > >> >> > > away.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the
>> > > > beginning
>> > > > > > with
>> > > > > > >> >> .NET
>> > > > > > >> >> > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > C++
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > :)
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually works as
>> > > > > expected,
>> > > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> needs
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > some
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns are
>> > false):
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - It's true that equality check works
>> > > properly,
>> > > > > but
>> > > > > > >> for
>> > > > > > >> >> SQL
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > range
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    queries it will break unless some special
>> > care
>> > > > is
>> > > > > > >> taken
>> > > > > > >> >> on
>> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > side:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will
>> be
>> > > > > converted
>> > > > > > >> to
>> > > > > > >> >> -1,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > which
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we don't have
>> > > > unsigned
>> > > > > > >> types
>> > > > > > >> >> > now,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > I
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > doubt
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    works.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - There is an obvious cross-platform data
>> > loss
>> > > > > when
>> > > > > > >> >> > > "intuitive"
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > type
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8
>> corresponds to
>> > > > byte
>> > > > > > >> type in
>> > > > > > >> >> > > .NET,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > but
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have to
>> use
>> > > short
>> > > > > > type
>> > > > > > >> in
>> > > > > > >> >> > Java,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    will also need to take care of the range
>> > check
>> > > > > > during
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > serialization).
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > I
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    think we can even allow to try to
>> > deserialize
>> > > a
>> > > > > > value
>> > > > > > >> >> into
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > arbitrary
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > type,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    but throw an exception if the range is
>> out
>> > of
>> > > > > > bounds.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once
>> all
>> > the
>> > > > > > details
>> > > > > > >> >> are
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > settled
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > here?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey
>> Mashenkov
>> > <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't
>> be
>> > > > treated
>> > > > > > >> >> correctly
>> > > > > > >> >> > > for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > now
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I think we could make "true" support for
>> > > unsigned
>> > > > > > >> types,
>> > > > > > >> >> but
>> > > > > > >> >> > > they
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map
>> uint64
>> > to
>> > > > > Java
>> > > > > > >> long
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > primitive,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > but
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > BigInteger only.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64 to
>> Java
>> > > > long,
>> > > > > > but
>> > > > > > >> >> treat
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > negative
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > values in a different way to preserve
>> correct
>> > > > > > ordering.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > These limitations will affect only mixed
>> > > > > environments
>> > > > > > >> when
>> > > > > > >> >> > .Net
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Java
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > used to access the data.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Will this solution address your issues?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel
>> > Tupitsyn
>> > > <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the
>> > > > > beginning
>> > > > > > >> with
>> > > > > > >> >> > .NET
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > C++
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > :)
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as cache
>> > keys
>> > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> values,
>> > > > > > >> >> > as
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > fields
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > properties,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y
>> > > clauses)
>> > > > -
>> > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> works
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > transparently
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the users.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats those
>> > > values
>> > > > > as
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > corresponding
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > signed
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > types.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in some
>> > cases
>> > > > > only
>> > > > > > >> >> because
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > there
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > are
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > no
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very simple
>> > > change
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > protocol
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > -
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > add
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > type
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as
>> signed
>> > > > > > >> >> counterparts.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey
>> > > > Mashenkov
>> > > > > <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise
>> > > > > > >> representation
>> > > > > > >> >> is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > same)
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a
>> > uByte
>> > > > > field
>> > > > > > >> and
>> > > > > > >> >> map
>> > > > > > >> >> > it
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > 'uint8'
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > column.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to "250"
>> and
>> > > put
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> object
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > into a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > table,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a single
>> > byte
>> > > > > > 'int8'
>> > > > > > >> >> > column.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it
>> to
>> > > > > directly
>> > > > > > >> the
>> > > > > > >> >> Java
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > object
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > field
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8
>> type
>> > to
>> > > > > Java
>> > > > > > >> >> 'short'
>> > > > > > >> >> > > type
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > because the one expected to see "250"
>> as
>> > a
>> > > > > value
>> > > > > > >> which
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > doesn't
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > fit
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > signed type.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a
>> BigInteger
>> > > > field
>> > > > > in
>> > > > > > >> >> Java.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat column
>> value
>> > > as
>> > > > > Java
>> > > > > > >> >> 'byte'
>> > > > > > >> >> > as
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > is,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > because
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a negative
>> > > value,
>> > > > so
>> > > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> should
>> > > > > > >> >> > > be
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > cast
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > short
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger for
>> > > > uint64)
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will require
>> a
>> > > > > different
>> > > > > > >> >> > > comparator.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel
>> > > > Tupitsyn
>> > > > > <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a
>> good
>> > > > idea.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the
>> simple
>> > > > > > approach
>> > > > > > >> I
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > described?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM
>> Andrey
>> > > > > > Mashenkov
>> > > > > > >> <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing range
>> > for
>> > > > > > unsigned
>> > > > > > >> >> types
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > then
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > we
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > could
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > add a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on
>> > schema
>> > > > > level
>> > > > > > >> >> (like
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > nullability
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > flag)
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types in
>> > > > storage.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate
>> storage
>> > > > > > >> type-system
>> > > > > > >> >> and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > binary
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > protocol
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of type
>> > will
>> > > > > match
>> > > > > > 1
>> > > > > > >> to
>> > > > > > >> >> 1
>> > > > > > >> >> > > with
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > storage
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (native)
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either have
>> a
>> > > > > separate
>> > > > > > >> type
>> > > > > > >> >> id
>> > > > > > >> >> > or
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > treat
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > serialized
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed
>> or
>> > > > > unsigned
>> > > > > > >> >> flag).
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever
>> foresee
>> > the
>> > > > > > >> >> consequences
>> > > > > > >> >> > of
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > using
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > types.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned
>> types
>> > > > > > perfectly
>> > > > > > >> >> works
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > with
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > some
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > database,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite
>> successor
>> > > > > > confession
>> > > > > > >> >> with
>> > > > > > >> >> > our
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > "native"
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he can
>> use
>> > the
>> > > > > power
>> > > > > > >> of
>> > > > > > >> >> > Ignite
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Compute
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either
>> fail to
>> > > use
>> > > > > his
>> > > > > > >> >> > unsigned
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > data
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > on
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Java
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > due
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > or
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due to
>> > natural
>> > > > Java
>> > > > > > >> type
>> > > > > > >> >> > system
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > limitations
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > e.g.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively supported
>> > types
>> > > > > with
>> > > > > > >> >> possible
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > value
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > ranges
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is what
>> > trade-off
>> > > > we
>> > > > > > >> found
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > acceptable:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > narrowing
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use types
>> of
>> > > wider
>> > > > > > >> range on
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > systems
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > like
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Java.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM
>> Igor
>> > > > > Sapego <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so
>> hard
>> > > to
>> > > > > > >> implement
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > comparison
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not
>> > seem
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > be a
>> > > > > > >> >> big
>> > > > > > >> >> > > issue
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > from
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > my
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned
>> types
>> > > from
>> > > > > > Java
>> > > > > > >> - I
>> > > > > > >> >> > > think,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > if
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > user
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > uses
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to
>> > interact
>> > > > with
>> > > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> from
>> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > he
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > knows
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > what
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > he
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from
>> > > platforms
>> > > > > > where
>> > > > > > >> >> they
>> > > > > > >> >> > > have
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > native
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > support
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > widely
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where
>> > > users
>> > > > > > >> currently
>> > > > > > >> >> > have
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > make a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > manual
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > casting
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using unsigned
>> > > types
>> > > > > when
>> > > > > > >> they
>> > > > > > >> >> > use
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Ignite.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM
>> > Pavel
>> > > > > > >> Tupitsyn <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for
>> those
>> > > > types
>> > > > > > >> >> > (basically,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > just
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > add
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > more
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java
>> > > > (bitwise
>> > > > > > >> >> > > representation
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > same)
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have
>> unsigned
>> > > > > integers,
>> > > > > > >> so
>> > > > > > >> >> we
>> > > > > > >> >> > can
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > simply
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > say
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative
>> > comparison
>> > > is
>> > > > > not
>> > > > > > >> >> > supported
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > in
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > SQL
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (equality
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40
>> PM
>> > > > Andrey
>> > > > > > >> >> Mashenkov
>> > > > > > >> >> > <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have
>> i8 or
>> > > > int8
>> > > > > > >> >> instead of
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Integer.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't
>> address
>> > > the
>> > > > > > issue.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types
>> should
>> > be
>> > > > > > portable
>> > > > > > >> >> > across
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > different
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > systems
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type
>> support.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is that
>> > > > unsigned
>> > > > > > >> types
>> > > > > > >> >> > cover
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > different
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > ranges.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to
>> > > introduce a
>> > > > > > >> uLong.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big
>> deal
>> > > to
>> > > > > add
>> > > > > > >> uLong
>> > > > > > >> >> > type
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > support
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > at
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > storage
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and
>> > then
>> > > > use
>> > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> in
>> > > > > > >> >> e.g.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > .Net
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > only.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support it
>> in
>> > > e.g.
>> > > > > > Java?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long
>> range
>> > is
>> > > > > about
>> > > > > > >> >> (2^-63
>> > > > > > >> >> > ..
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 2^63)
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > uLong
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > range
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to
>> > > restrict
>> > > > > > range
>> > > > > > >> to
>> > > > > > >> >> (0
>> > > > > > >> >> > ..
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > 2^63).
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > This
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > allows
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but
>> > > > doesn't
>> > > > > > look
>> > > > > > >> >> like
>> > > > > > >> >> > a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 'real'
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uLong
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse
>> when
>> > the
>> > > > > user
>> > > > > > >> will
>> > > > > > >> >> use
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > uByte,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > as
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > limitation
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map
>> > > > unsigned
>> > > > > > >> types
>> > > > > > >> >> to a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > type
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > of
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > wider
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative
>> > values.
>> > > > > E.g.
>> > > > > > >> >> uLong to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > BigInteger.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive
>> Java
>> > > > type
>> > > > > > for
>> > > > > > >> >> Long
>> > > > > > >> >> > > here.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > However,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > still
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8
>> > > bytes,
>> > > > > but
>> > > > > > >> >> have a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > special
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > comparator
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid
>> > unwanted
>> > > > > > >> >> > deserialization.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
>> 2:04 PM
>> > > > Pavel
>> > > > > > >> >> Tupitsyn
>> > > > > > >> >> > <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of
>> > "long,
>> > > > > short,
>> > > > > > >> >> byte"
>> > > > > > >> >> > in
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > protocol
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style,
>> which
>> > is
>> > > > > > concise
>> > > > > > >> >> and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > unambiguous:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
>> 1:58
>> > PM
>> > > > > Igor
>> > > > > > >> >> Sapego <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support that.
>> > Also,
>> > > > if
>> > > > > we
>> > > > > > >> are
>> > > > > > >> >> > > aiming
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger
>> > > platform-independance,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may
>> want
>> > to
>> > > > > > support
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > bit-notation
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (int32,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a
>> different
>> > > > type
>> > > > > on
>> > > > > > >> >> > different
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > platforms
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often when
>> > > using
>> > > > > ODBC
>> > > > > > >> for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > example).
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
>> > 1:34
>> > > PM
>> > > > > > Pavel
>> > > > > > >> >> > > Tupitsyn
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should
>> support
>> > > > > > unsigned
>> > > > > > >> >> data
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > types:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt,
>> > uLong
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have
>> them,
>> > > but
>> > > > > many
>> > > > > > >> >> other
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > languages
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > do,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing
>> > number
>> > > > of
>> > > > > > thin
>> > > > > > >> >> > clients
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > this
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > important.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in
>> current
>> > > > > > Ignite.NET
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > implementation
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > store
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge
>> pain
>> > > when
>> > > > it
>> > > > > > >> comes
>> > > > > > >> >> to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > metadata,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > binary
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to
>> > deserialize
>> > > > int
>> > > > > as
>> > > > > > >> uint
>> > > > > > >> >> > when
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > you
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > have
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > class,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020
>> at
>> > > 12:28
>> > > > > PM
>> > > > > > >> >> Andrey
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Mashenkov <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
>> > > >
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both
>> > > > serializers
>> > > > > > use
>> > > > > > >> >> > > reflection
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will
>> allow
>> > > > users
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > configure
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > static
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > along
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we
>> still
>> > > need
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> validate
>> > > > > > >> >> > > user
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > classes
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > client
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in
>> > the
>> > > > grid
>> > > > > > >> and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > reflection
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > only
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few
>> > > articles
>> > > > > on
>> > > > > > >> the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > internet
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > on
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > how
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > enable
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task
>> for
>> > > > > > supporting
>> > > > > > >> >> > > GraalVM,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > maybe
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > someone
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with
>> GraalVM
>> > > will
>> > > > > > >> suggest a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > solution
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > or
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proper
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit
>> later.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is
>> > > found,
>> > > > we
>> > > > > > >> could
>> > > > > > >> >> > allow
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > users
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > write
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > own
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I
>> don't
>> > > > think
>> > > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> is
>> > > > > > >> >> a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > good
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > idea
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > expose
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > any
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the
>> public.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24,
>> 2020 at
>> > > > 2:55
>> > > > > AM
>> > > > > > >> >> Denis
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > Magda <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for
>> > the
>> > > > > > update,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the
>> > > > serializers
>> > > > > > >> take
>> > > > > > >> >> into
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > consideration
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > native-image-generation
>> > > > > > >> feature of
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > GraalVM?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current
>> > binary
>> > > > > > >> >> marshaller,
>> > > > > > >> >> > we
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > can't
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > even
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > generate
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using
>> > our
>> > > > thin
>> > > > > > >> client
>> > > > > > >> >> > > APIs.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23,
>> 2020
>> > at
>> > > > > 4:39
>> > > > > > AM
>> > > > > > >> >> > Andrey
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Mashenkov
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to
>> > continue
>> > > > > > >> discussion
>> > > > > > >> >> of
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > IEP-54
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone
>> who
>> > is
>> > > > > > >> interested
>> > > > > > >> >> > had a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > chance
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > get
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not
>> > > hesitate
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> ask
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > questions
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > share
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > your
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a
>> > > > prototype
>> > > > > > of
>> > > > > > >> >> > > serializer
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > [2]
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > data
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I
>> > > compared
>> > > > 2
>> > > > > > >> >> approaches
>> > > > > > >> >> > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > (de)serialize
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java
>> > > > > reflection/unsafe
>> > > > > > >> API
>> > > > > > >> >> and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > similar
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > one
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second
>> one
>> > > > > > generates
>> > > > > > >> >> > > serializer
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > particular
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > user
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library
>> for
>> > > > > > >> compilation.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows
>> > > better
>> > > > > > >> results
>> > > > > > >> >> in
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > benchmarks.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can
>> go
>> > > with
>> > > > it
>> > > > > > as
>> > > > > > >> >> > default
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > serializer
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > have
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation
>> as a
>> > > > > > fallback
>> > > > > > >> if
>> > > > > > >> >> > > someone
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > issues
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a
>> number
>> > of
>> > > > > tasks
>> > > > > > >> >> under
>> > > > > > >> >> > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > umbrella
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ticket
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going
>> to
>> > > > create
>> > > > > > more
>> > > > > > >> >> > tickets
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > manager
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation,
>> but
>> > > > would
>> > > > > > >> like
>> > > > > > >> >> to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > clarify
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > some
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > details.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought
>> > > schemaManager
>> > > > > on
>> > > > > > >> each
>> > > > > > >> >> > node
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > should
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > held:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local
>> mapping
>> > of
>> > > > > > "schema
>> > > > > > >> >> > > version"
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > <-->
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > validated
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > local
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2.
>> Cluster-wide
>> > > > schema
>> > > > > > >> changes
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > history.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client
>> side.
>> > > > > Before
>> > > > > > >> any
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > key-value
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > operation
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a
>> given
>> > > > > > key-value
>> > > > > > >> >> pair.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no
>> > > > > > local-mapping
>> > > > > > >> >> exists
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > for a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > given
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide
>> schema
>> > > > has a
>> > > > > > >> more
>> > > > > > >> >> > recent
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > version
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be
>> validated
>> > > > > against
>> > > > > > >> the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > latest
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > version
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > local
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> updated/actualized.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object
>> > doesn't
>> > > > fit
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > latest
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > depends
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either
>> fail
>> > the
>> > > > > > >> operation
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > ('strict'
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > mode)
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > or
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > new
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a
>> new
>> > > > schema
>> > > > > > >> version
>> > > > > > >> >> > > should
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > be
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > propagated
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server
>> side
>> > we
>> > > > > > usually
>> > > > > > >> >> have
>> > > > > > >> >> > no
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > key-value
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > classes
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change
>> > > > history
>> > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > available
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > tuple
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > has
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible
>> to
>> > > > upgrade
>> > > > > > any
>> > > > > > >> >> > > received
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > tuple
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > last
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could
>> allow
>> > > > nodes
>> > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> send
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > key-value
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > pairs
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't
>> > receive a
>> > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > >> >> update
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > yet)
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > without
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > reverting
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node
>> with
>> > > > newer
>> > > > > > >> >> classes.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan
>> did
>> > > you
>> > > > > > mean
>> > > > > > >> the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > same?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17,
>> > 2020
>> > > at
>> > > > > > 9:21
>> > > > > > >> AM
>> > > > > > >> >> > Ivan
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Pavlukhin
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not
>> > > ignore
>> > > > > > >> history.
>> > > > > > >> >> We
>> > > > > > >> >> > > had
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > thread
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > many
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can
>> > > resume
>> > > > > it.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10
>> 0:08
>> > > > > > GMT+03:00,
>> > > > > > >> >> Denis
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > Magda
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes
>> > sense,
>> > > > > > thanks
>> > > > > > >> for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > explaining.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that
>> we
>> > > need
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > >> have a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > separate
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > discussion
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
>> terms
>> > > > > > >> substitution.
>> > > > > > >> >> > I'll
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > appreciate
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > if
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > you
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing
>> > pointers
>> > > to
>> > > > > any
>> > > > > > >> >> > relevant
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > IEPs
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > reasoning
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep
>> 8,
>> > > 2020
>> > > > > at
>> > > > > > >> 6:01
>> > > > > > >> >> PM
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Valentin
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the
>> > > > wording
>> > > > > in
>> > > > > > >> the
>> > > > > > >> >> IEP
>> > > > > > >> >> > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > little
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > bit
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you
>> > should
>> > > > not
>> > > > > > >> create
>> > > > > > >> >> > > nested
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > POJOs,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > but
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > rather
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO
>> > that
>> > > > is
>> > > > > > >> mapped
>> > > > > > >> >> to
>> > > > > > >> >> > a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > particular
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > In
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are
>> not
>> > > > > > supported.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is
>> this
>> > > > > correct?
>> > > > > > >> >> Please
>> > > > > > >> >> > > let
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > me
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > know
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > if
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I'm
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > missing
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the
>> > > "cache"
>> > > > > > >> term, I
>> > > > > > >> >> > agree
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > that
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can
>> > > > replace
>> > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> with.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > "Table"
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > tightly
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is
>> > optional
>> > > in
>> > > > > our
>> > > > > > >> >> case.
>> > > > > > >> >> > Do
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > you
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > want
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > create a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue,
>> Sep 8,
>> > > > 2020
>> > > > > at
>> > > > > > >> >> 4:37 PM
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > Denis
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Magda <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've
>> checked
>> > > the
>> > > > > IEP
>> > > > > > >> again
>> > > > > > >> >> > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > have a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > few
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > questions.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary
>> > > nested
>> > > > > > >> objects
>> > > > > > >> >> and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > collections
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > are
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > not
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested
>> > POJOs
>> > > > > should
>> > > > > > >> >> either
>> > > > > > >> >> > be
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > inlined
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > into
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you
>> > > > provide a
>> > > > > > DDL
>> > > > > > >> >> code
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > snippet
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > showing
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > how
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed
>> to
>> > > work?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we
>> keep
>> > > > using
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> terms
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > "cache"
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > "table"
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right
>> > time
>> > > to
>> > > > > > >> discuss
>> > > > > > >> >> an
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > alternate
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > name
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> Personally,
>> > the
>> > > > > > "table"
>> > > > > > >> >> > should
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > stay
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> considering
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL
>> is
>> > one
>> > > > of
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > primary
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > APIs
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > in
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > out-of-the-box.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon,
>> Sep
>> > 7,
>> > > > 2020
>> > > > > > at
>> > > > > > >> >> 12:26
>> > > > > > >> >> > PM
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see
>> your
>> > > > > point. I
>> > > > > > >> >> agree
>> > > > > > >> >> > > that
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > with
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > automatic
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> schema-last
>> > > > > > >> territory.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> Actually,
>> > if
>> > > we
>> > > > > > >> support
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > automatic
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > evolution,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> creating a
>> > > > cache
>> > > > > > >> without
>> > > > > > >> >> > > schema
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > inferring
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other
>> > words,
>> > > we
>> > > > > can
>> > > > > > >> have
>> > > > > > >> >> > both
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey,
>> > what
>> > > do
>> > > > > you
>> > > > > > >> >> think?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon,
>> Sep
>> > > 7,
>> > > > > 2020
>> > > > > > >> at
>> > > > > > >> >> 5:59
>> > > > > > >> >> > > AM
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Alexey
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > >> >> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
>> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank
>> > you,
>> > > I
>> > > > > got
>> > > > > > >> your
>> > > > > > >> >> > > concern
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > now.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > As
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> > > terminology,
>> > > > I
>> > > > > am
>> > > > > > >> >> > > absolutely
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > fine
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > changing
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the
>> > > approach
>> > > > > > best.
>> > > > > > >> >> > Dynamic
>> > > > > > >> >> > > or
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > evolving
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> > > corresponding
>> > > > > > >> changes
>> > > > > > >> >> to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > IEP
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > once
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > settle
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7
>> > сент.
>> > > > > 2020
>> > > > > > >> г. в
>> > > > > > >> >> > > 11:33,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Ivan
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> vololo100@gmail.com
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi
>> Val,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> Thank
>> > you
>> > > > for
>> > > > > > >> your
>> > > > > > >> >> > > answer!
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My
>> > > > > > understanding
>> > > > > > >> is
>> > > > > > >> >> a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > little
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > bit
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > different.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > definitely
>> > > > > > >> should be
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > possible.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > But
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > see
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > main
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> schema
>> > is
>> > > > > > >> updated".
>> > > > > > >> >> I
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > treat a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > common
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > SQL
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
>> > data
>> > > > > > >> >> manipulation
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > operations
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > are
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > clearly
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > interesting
>> > > > > > >> >> > capabilities,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > e.g.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > preventing
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > mistaken
>> > > > data
>> > > > > > >> >> > operations,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > restricting
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > user
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> schema.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
>> > > > > Schema-first
>> > > > > > >> means
>> > > > > > >> >> > that
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > exists
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
>> > > > compliant
>> > > > > > with
>> > > > > > >> >> it -
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > that's
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > exactly
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > what
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A
>> > > > schema-last
>> > > > > > >> >> approach
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > mentioned
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > also
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> exists,
>> > > but
>> > > > > it
>> > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > inferred
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > from
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > data.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > proposing
>> > > > > > >> approach?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And
>> I
>> > > would
>> > > > > > like
>> > > > > > >> to
>> > > > > > >> >> > say,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > that
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > my
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > main
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > concern
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> about
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > terminology.
>> > > > > > And
>> > > > > > >> I
>> > > > > > >> >> > > suppose
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > if
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > confuses
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > me
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > confused
>> > > as
>> > > > > > >> well. My
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > feeling
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > closer
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > evolving
>> > > > > > schema".
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > 2020-09-07
>> > > > > 0:47
>> > > > > > >> >> > > GMT+03:00,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi
>> > > Ivan,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I
>> > don't
>> > > > see
>> > > > > > an
>> > > > > > >> >> issue
>> > > > > > >> >> > > with
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > that.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
>> > advance
>> > > > and
>> > > > > > all
>> > > > > > >> >> the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > stored
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > data
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > compliant
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is
>> > > > > proposed.
>> > > > > > >> There
>> > > > > > >> >> > are
>> > > > > > >> >> > > no
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > restrictions
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
>> the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> schema.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
>> -Val
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On
>> > Sat,
>> > > > Sep
>> > > > > > 5,
>> > > > > > >> >> 2020
>> > > > > > >> >> > at
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > 9:52
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > PM
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ivan
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > Alexey,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I
>> > am a
>> > > > > > little
>> > > > > > >> bit
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > confused
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> to a
>> > > > > survey
>> > > > > > >> [1]
>> > > > > > >> >> (see
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > part
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > X
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Semi
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Structured
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > really
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a
>> > > > "dynamic
>> > > > > > >> >> schema"
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > approach
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > as a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > kind
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> [1]
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > 2020-09-02
>> > > > > > >> 1:53
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > GMT+03:00,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Denis
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > > > However,
>> > > > > > >> could
>> > > > > > >> >> > you
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > please
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > ORM?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > Is
>> > > > > there
>> > > > > > a
>> > > > > > >> use
>> > > > > > >> >> > case
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > (I
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> haven't
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > seen
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > one
>> > > > so
>> > > > > > >> far)?
>> > > > > > >> >> If
>> > > > > > >> >> > so,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > what
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > support
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > this?
>> > > > > In
>> > > > > > my
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > have.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > Am
>> > > I
>> > > > > > >> missing
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > something?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > Good
>> > > > > > point,
>> > > > > > >> >> yes,
>> > > > > > >> >> > if
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > all
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > ORM
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > internally,
>> > > > > > >> >> then
>> > > > > > >> >> > > they
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > can
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > easily
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > translate
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> INSERT/UPDATE
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > statement
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > that
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > lists
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > all
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > our
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > Spring
>> > > > > > Data
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > integration
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > already
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > based
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > APIs
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > needs
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > to
>> > > be
>> > > > > > >> improved
>> > > > > > >> >> > once
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > schema-first
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > solve
>> > > > a
>> > > > > > ton
>> > > > > > >> of
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > usability
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > issues.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > I
>> > > > would
>> > > > > > >> revise
>> > > > > > >> >> the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Hibernate
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > integration
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> dev
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > phase.
>> > > > > > Can't
>> > > > > > >> >> say
>> > > > > > >> >> > if
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > it's
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > used
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > lot
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > but
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > getting
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > traction
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > sure.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > @Michael
>> > > > > > >> >> Pollind,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > I'll
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > loop
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > you
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > long
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > Ignite
>> > > > > > >> support
>> > > > > > >> >> for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Micornaut
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Data
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > came
>> > > > > > across
>> > > > > > >> >> some
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > challenges.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Just
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > watch
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > That's
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > coming
>> > > > > in
>> > > > > > >> >> Ignite
>> > > > > > >> >> > > 3.0.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > -
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > Denis
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > On
>> > > > Mon,
>> > > > > > Aug
>> > > > > > >> 31,
>> > > > > > >> >> > 2020
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > at
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > 5:11
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > Hi
>> > > > > Denis,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > > > Generally
>> > > > > > >> >> > > speaking, I
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > believe
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> natively
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > > > addresses
>> > > > > > >> the
>> > > > > > >> >> > issue
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > if
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > duplicate
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > fields
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > because
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > > schema
>> > > > > > >> will be
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > created
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > cache,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> happens
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> now.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > > > > Basically,
>> > > > > > >> the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > schema
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > define
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > whether
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > not,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > and
>> > > > > which
>> > > > > > >> >> fields
>> > > > > > >> >> > > are
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > included
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > case
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > would
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > have
>> > > > > must
>> > > > > > >> be
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > compliant
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > with
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > this,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > so
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > with
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > data
>> > > > as
>> > > > > > >> with a
>> > > > > > >> >> > set
>> > > > > > >> >> > > of
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > records,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > rather
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > > > However,
>> > > > > > >> could
>> > > > > > >> >> > you
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > please
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > ORM?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > Is
>> > > > > there
>> > > > > > a
>> > > > > > >> use
>> > > > > > >> >> > case
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > (I
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> haven't
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > seen
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > one
>> > > > so
>> > > > > > >> far)?
>> > > > > > >> >> If
>> > > > > > >> >> > so,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > what
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > support
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > this?
>> > > > > In
>> > > > > > my
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > have.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > Am
>> > > I
>> > > > > > >> missing
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > something?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > -Val
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > On
>> > > > Mon,
>> > > > > > Aug
>> > > > > > >> >> 31,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > 2020
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > at
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > 2:08
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Denis
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > dmagda@apache.org>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > Val,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > I
>> > > > > would
>> > > > > > >> >> propose
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > adding
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > another
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > point
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > list
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > > related
>> > > > > > >> to
>> > > > > > >> >> the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > ORM
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > frameworks
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > such
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > Micronaut
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > many
>> > > > > > >> others.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > > > >> Presently,
>> > > > > > >> >> the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > storage
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > engine
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requires
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > from
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > value
>> > > > > > >> ones
>> > > > > > >> >> that
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > complicate
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > usage
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > > > >> frameworks
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > > > >> (especially
>> > > > > > >> >> if
>> > > > > > >> >> > a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > key
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > object
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > comprises
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > More
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> can
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > be
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > found
>> > > > > > >> here:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > It
>> > > > > will
>> > > > > > >> be
>> > > > > > >> >> nice
>> > > > > > >> >> > > if
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > new
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> with
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > > single
>> > > > > > >> >> entity
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > object
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > when
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > comes
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > split
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > > entity
>> > > > > > >> into
>> > > > > > >> >> a
>> > > > > > >> >> > key
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > value.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Just
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > want
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > 3.0
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > has
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > all
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > essential
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > public
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > APIs
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> > > single-entity
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > based
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > > > approach.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > What
>> > > > > do
>> > > > > > >> you
>> > > > > > >> >> > > think?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > -
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > Denis
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > On
>> > > > > Fri,
>> > > > > > >> Aug
>> > > > > > >> >> 28,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > 2020
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > at
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > 3:50
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > PM
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> Igniters,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > >
>> > > > One
>> > > > > > of
>> > > > > > >> the
>> > > > > > >> >> > big
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > changes
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proposed
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> so-called
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> "schema-first
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > approach".
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > To
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > add
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > more
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > >
>> > > > > > started
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> writing
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > >
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > IEP
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > >
>> > > > for
>> > > > > > >> this
>> > > > > > >> >> > > change:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > >
>> > > > > > Please
>> > > > > > >> >> take a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > look
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > let
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > me
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > know
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> thoughts,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> suggestions,
>> > > > > > >> >> > or
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > objections.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > >
>> > > > > -Val
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> --
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> Best
>> > > > > > regards,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> Ivan
>> > > > > > Pavlukhin
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best
>> > > > regards,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan
>> > > > > Pavlukhin
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V.
>> Mashenkov
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > --
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > --
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> > > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > --
>> > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Best regards,
>> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Best regards,
>> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> >
>>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>


-- 
Best regards,
Andrey V. Mashenkov

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>]

Igniters,
I've prepared PR [1] with Public Table API for final review.

Main points
There are 4 projection interfaces over Table for different use-cases (Plain
record vs Key-Value and POJO vs Binary object) declaring synchronous and
asynchronous methods.
Async method returns IgniteFuture as there is no consensus on IgniteFuture
vs JDK CompletableFuture yet.
API implementation is incomplete, it just an example of how it could be
done and will be implemented in future tasks.
Tuple/TupleAssembler renamed to Row/RowAssembler. Now Tuple is just a
dictionary representing a subset of columns, while Row is a schema-aware
object containing key and value columns respectively to the data layout.

On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:26 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>
wrote:

> I see, thanks.
>
> Let's discuss the return type - Future is not the one to use.
> We should return CompletionStage, CompletableFuture, or introduce our own
> interface.
> We agreed on the last one (custom interface) for thin clients:
>
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/IEP-51-Java-Thin-Client-Async-API-td48900.html
>
> I believe that for Ignite 3.0 we should have the following:
> public interface IgniteFuture<T> extends Future<T>, CompletionStage<T> {
>     // No-op.
> }
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:16 AM Andrey Mashenkov <
> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Pavel,
> > There are 2 PR's for the ticket[1] with two different APIs  suggested.
> > Please, take a look at PR [2].
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14035
> > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/69
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:11 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Andrey, I can't find any async methods,
> > > can you please check if the changes are pushed?
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 10:06 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Pavel, good point.
> > > > Thanks. I've added async methods.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 2:29 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupitsyn@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Andrey,
> > > > >
> > > > > What about corresponding async APIs, do we add them now or later?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 8:11 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Igniters.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've created a PR for Table access API [1].
> > > > > > This is an initial version. So, any suggestions\objections are
> > > > welcomed.
> > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to write your comments and\or examples to
> > the
> > > > PR.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ignite-api module contains API classes, e.g. TableView classes as
> > > > > > projections for a table for different purposes.
> > > > > > Ignite-table contains dummy implementation and Example class
> > > explained
> > > > > how
> > > > > > it is supposed to be used.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, I'm still waiting for any feedback for Schema configuration
> > > > public
> > > > > > API PR [2].
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/33
> > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:05 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've updated a PR regarding your feedback [1].
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:58 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Folks,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I updated the IEP to contain the missing pieces; actually,
> most
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > >> questions here were covered by the text. Please let me know if
> > > there
> > > > > is
> > > > > > >> something still missing or unclear.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> чт, 31 дек. 2020 г. в 12:48, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > > > > > >> >:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > Mikhail and Igniters,
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Thanks for your comments. The questions are reasonable,
> > though I
> > > > > think
> > > > > > >> all
> > > > > > >> > concerns are addressed by the IEP as Val mentioned. I will
> > > update
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > document according to your questions in the following week
> or
> > > so,
> > > > so
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > >> can
> > > > > > >> > have a constructive discussion further.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > ср, 30 дек. 2020 г. в 11:45, Michael Cherkasov <
> > > > > > >> > michael.cherkasov@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> Hi Val, Andrey,
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> thank you for clarifying.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> I still have a few comments.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> 1. one table == one schema. KV vs SQL:
> > > > > > >> >> Looks like all agreed that KV is just a special case of a
> > > regular
> > > > > > table
> > > > > > >> >> with (blob,blob) schema.
> > > > > > >> >> I worry about the case when the user starts from KV case
> and
> > > > later
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > >> >> try
> > > > > > >> >> to expand it and try to leverage SQL for the existing KV
> > table
> > > it
> > > > > > >> won't be
> > > > > > >> >> able to do so and will require to reload data. which isn't
> > > > > convenient
> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > >> >> sometimes not even possible. Is it possible to extract a
> new
> > > > field
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > >> >> (blob, blob) schema and apply index on it?
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> 2. Could you please also list all ways of schema definition
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > >> IEP? It
> > > > > > >> >> significant change and I bet the main point of this IEP,
> > > everyone
> > > > > > hates
> > > > > > >> >> QueryEntities, they are difficult to manage and in general,
> > > it's
> > > > > very
> > > > > > >> >> confusing to have a data model(schemas) and node/cluster
> > > > > > configuration
> > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > >> >> one place.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> So there will be SchemaBuilder and SQL to define schemas,
> but
> > > > > Andrey
> > > > > > >> also
> > > > > > >> >> mentioned annotations.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> I personally against configuration via annotations, while
> > it's
> > > > > > >> convenient
> > > > > > >> >> for development, it difficult to manage because different
> > > classes
> > > > > can
> > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > >> >> deployed on different clients/servers nodes and it can lead
> > to
> > > > > > >> >> unpredictable results.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> 3. IEP doesn't mention field type changes, only drop/add
> > > fields.
> > > > > > Field
> > > > > > >> >> type
> > > > > > >> >> changes are extremely painful right now(if even possible),
> so
> > > it
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > >> >> nice if some scenarios would be supported(like int8->int16,
> > or
> > > > > > >> >> int8->String).
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> 4. got it, I thought IEP will have more details about the
> > > > > > >> implementation.
> > > > > > >> >> I've seen Andrey even sent benchmark results for a new
> > > > > serialization,
> > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > >> >> ping him about this.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> 5. Thanks for the clarification. I had a wrong
> understanding
> > of
> > > > > > strick
> > > > > > >> >> mode.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> вт, 29 дек. 2020 г. в 19:32, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > > >> >> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> > Hi Mike,
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > Thanks for providing your feedback. Please see my
> comments
> > > > below.
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > I would also encourage you to go through the IEP-54 [1] -
> > it
> > > > has
> > > > > a
> > > > > > >> lot
> > > > > > >> >> of
> > > > > > >> >> > detail on the topic.
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > [1]
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > -Val
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:22 PM Michael Cherkasov <
> > > > > > >> >> > michael.cherkasov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > Hi all,
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > I reviewed the mail thread and proposal page and I
> still
> > > > don't
> > > > > > >> fully
> > > > > > >> >> > > understand what is going to be changed, I would really
> > > > > appreciate
> > > > > > >> it
> > > > > > >> >> if
> > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > > >> >> > > will answer a few questions:
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > 1. Are you going to leave only one schema per cache? if
> > so,
> > > > > will
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > >> >> there
> > > > > > >> >> > > an option to have a table with arbitrary objects(pure
> KV
> > > > case)?
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > My opinion is that KV case should be natively supported.
> I
> > > > think
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > >> >> still
> > > > > > >> >> > needs to be thought over, my current view on this is that
> > we
> > > > > should
> > > > > > >> have
> > > > > > >> >> > separate APIs for KV and more generic storages. KV
> storage
> > > can
> > > > be
> > > > > > >> >> > implemented as a "table" with two BLOB fields where we
> will
> > > > store
> > > > > > >> >> > serialized key-value pairs. That would imply
> > deserialization
> > > on
> > > > > > read,
> > > > > > >> >> but I
> > > > > > >> >> > believe this is OK for KV use cases. I'm happy to hear
> > other
> > > > > ideas
> > > > > > >> >> though
> > > > > > >> >> > :)
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0 have to define
> > > schema?
> > > > > > >> >> > SchemaBuilder
> > > > > > >> >> > > and SQL only? Is there an option to put the schema
> > > definition
> > > > > to
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> >> > > configuration?(I really don't like this, I would prefer
> > to
> > > > have
> > > > > > >> >> > > separate scripts to create schemas)
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > There will be no such thing as a static configuration in
> > the
> > > > > first
> > > > > > >> >> place.
> > > > > > >> >> > Tables and schemas are created in runtime. Even if there
> > is a
> > > > > file
> > > > > > >> >> provided
> > > > > > >> >> > on node startup, this file is only applied in the scope
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > >> 'start'
> > > > > > >> >> > operation. All configurations will be stored in a meta
> > > storage
> > > > > > >> >> available to
> > > > > > >> >> > all nodes, as opposed to individual files.
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > 3. Is there a way to change field type? if yes, can it
> be
> > > > done
> > > > > in
> > > > > > >> >> > runtime?
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > Absolutely! IEP-54 has a whole section about schema
> > > evolution.
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going to be re-worked
> > > too,
> > > > is
> > > > > > >> there
> > > > > > >> >> any
> > > > > > >> >> > > IEP for this?
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > BinaryMarshaller as a tool for arbitrary object
> > serialization
> > > > > will
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > >> >> gone,
> > > > > > >> >> > but we will reuse a lot of its concept to implement an
> > > internal
> > > > > > tuple
> > > > > > >> >> > serialization mechanism. IEP-54 has the description of
> the
> > > > > proposed
> > > > > > >> data
> > > > > > >> >> > format.
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > 5. I don't like automatic schema evaluation when a new
> > > field
> > > > is
> > > > > > >> added
> > > > > > >> >> > > automatically on record put, so is there a way to
> > prohibit
> > > > this
> > > > > > >> >> behavior?
> > > > > > >> >> > >  I think all schema changes should be done only
> > explicitly
> > > > > except
> > > > > > >> >> initial
> > > > > > >> >> > > schema creation.
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > The way I see it is that we should have two modes:
> > > schema-first
> > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > schema-last. Schema-first means exactly what you've
> > > described -
> > > > > > >> schemas
> > > > > > >> >> are
> > > > > > >> >> > defined and updated explicitly by the user. In the
> > > schema-last
> > > > > > mode,
> > > > > > >> >> > the user does not deal with schemas, as they are inferred
> > > from
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >> data
> > > > > > >> >> > inserted into tables. We should definitely not mix these
> > > modes
> > > > -
> > > > > it
> > > > > > >> has
> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > >> >> > be one or another. And it probably makes sense to discuss
> > > which
> > > > > > mode
> > > > > > >> >> should
> > > > > > >> >> > be the default one.
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > Thanks,
> > > > > > >> >> > > Mike.
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > >> >> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > >> >> > > >:
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > Hi, Igniters.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > We all know that the current QueryEntity API is not
> > > > > convenient
> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > >> >> > needs
> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > be reworked.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema
> configuration
> > > > public
> > > > > > API
> > > > > > >> >> for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > Ignite 3.0.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > New schema configuration uses Builder pattern, which
> > > looks
> > > > > more
> > > > > > >> >> > > comfortable
> > > > > > >> >> > > > to use.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package with the
> API
> > > > > itself,
> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > >> >> a
> > > > > > >> >> > > draft
> > > > > > >> >> > > > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > and a test that demonstrates how the API could be
> used.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > Please note:
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with static
> > > factory
> > > > > > >> methods.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > * The implementation is decoupled and can be easily
> > > > extracted
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > separate
> > > > > > >> >> > > > module if we decide to do so.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are missed,
> they
> > > will
> > > > > be
> > > > > > >> added
> > > > > > >> >> > > lately
> > > > > > >> >> > > > in separate tickes.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Index configuration extends marker interface that
> > makes
> > > > > > >> possible
> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > Hopfully, we could add a persistent geo-indices
> support
> > > in
> > > > > > >> future.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Supposedly, current table schema can be changed via
> > > > > > >> builder-like
> > > > > > >> >> > > > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See
> > > > > > >> >> 'TableModificationBuilder'
> > > > > > >> >> > > for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > details.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have 'toBuilder()'
> > > > > converter
> > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > >> >> that
> > > > > > >> >> > > > purpose as it is a Schema Manager responsibility to
> > > create
> > > > > > >> mutator
> > > > > > >> >> > > objects
> > > > > > >> >> > > > from the current schema,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > but implementing the Schema manager is out of scope
> and
> > > > will
> > > > > be
> > > > > > >> >> > designed
> > > > > > >> >> > > > within the next task.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Interfaces implementations are out of scope. I did
> > not
> > > > > intend
> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > >> >> > merge
> > > > > > >> >> > > > them right now, but for test/demostration purposes.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > It is NOT the final version and some may be changed
> > > before
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >> first
> > > > > > >> >> > > > release of course.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed with this
> > > > > approach
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > >> >> some
> > > > > > >> >> > > > issues should be resolved at first.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > Any thoughts or objections?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > Are interfaces good enough to be merged within the
> > > current
> > > > > > >> ticket?
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <
> > > > > > >> jury.gerzhedowich@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 2. It requires adding new types to the internal
> > > > > > representation,
> > > > > > >> >> > > protocol,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > e.t.c.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 3. internal representation should be the same as we
> > > keep
> > > > > sign
> > > > > > >> >> types.
> > > > > > >> >> > So
> > > > > > >> >> > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > will not requires more memory
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such types for
> > > > > platforms
> > > > > > >> >> which
> > > > > > >> >> > not
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > support unsigned types. For example, a user could
> > > derive
> > > > -6
> > > > > > >> value
> > > > > > >> >> in
> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits perspective
> > will
> > > > be
> > > > > > >> >> right). I
> > > > > > >> >> > > > think
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such cases,
> > > > especially
> > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> will be
> > > > > > >> >> > > bad
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for unsigned long when we require returns
> BigInteger
> > > > type.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix for new
> > > types
> > > > > > like
> > > > > > >> a
> > > > > > >> >> > > '250u' -
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive
> comparison
> > > > logic
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> >> > indexes
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for
> expressions.
> > I
> > > > > think
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> not
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > possible for the current H2 engine and probably
> > > possible
> > > > > for
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> >> new
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from anybody who
> > > > > involved
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > >> >> this
> > > > > > >> >> > > part
> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0: once
> > we
> > > > the
> > > > > > >> actual
> > > > > > >> >> > type
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > information, we can make proper runtime
> adjustments
> > > and
> > > > > > >> >> conversions
> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will be just
> a
> > > bit
> > > > > more
> > > > > > >> >> > > expensive.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > >> >> ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > >> >> > >:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons and
> so
> > > on
> > > > > are
> > > > > > >> >> broken
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned
> this
> > > > > > somewhere
> > > > > > >> >> > above.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document that SQL
> is
> > > not
> > > > > > >> >> supported
> > > > > > >> >> > on
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > those
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > types,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > end of story.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey
> Goncharuk
> > <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable request.
> I
> > > > > thought
> > > > > > >> about
> > > > > > >> >> > this
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > when
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > I
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add
> > these
> > > > > types
> > > > > > >> right
> > > > > > >> >> > > away.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the
> > > > beginning
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> >> .NET
> > > > > > >> >> > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > C++
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > :)
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually works as
> > > > > expected,
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> needs
> > > > > > >> >> > > > some
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns are
> > false):
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - It's true that equality check works
> > > properly,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > >> >> SQL
> > > > > > >> >> > > > range
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    queries it will break unless some special
> > care
> > > > is
> > > > > > >> taken
> > > > > > >> >> on
> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > side:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will be
> > > > > converted
> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > >> >> -1,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > which
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we don't have
> > > > unsigned
> > > > > > >> types
> > > > > > >> >> > now,
> > > > > > >> >> > > I
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > doubt
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    works.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - There is an obvious cross-platform data
> > loss
> > > > > when
> > > > > > >> >> > > "intuitive"
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > type
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8 corresponds
> to
> > > > byte
> > > > > > >> type in
> > > > > > >> >> > > .NET,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > but
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have to use
> > > short
> > > > > > type
> > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > >> >> > Java,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    will also need to take care of the range
> > check
> > > > > > during
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > serialization).
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    think we can even allow to try to
> > deserialize
> > > a
> > > > > > value
> > > > > > >> >> into
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > arbitrary
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > type,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    but throw an exception if the range is out
> > of
> > > > > > bounds.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once all
> > the
> > > > > > details
> > > > > > >> >> are
> > > > > > >> >> > > > settled
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > here?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey
> Mashenkov
> > <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't be
> > > > treated
> > > > > > >> >> correctly
> > > > > > >> >> > > for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > now
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I think we could make "true" support for
> > > unsigned
> > > > > > >> types,
> > > > > > >> >> but
> > > > > > >> >> > > they
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map
> uint64
> > to
> > > > > Java
> > > > > > >> long
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > primitive,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > BigInteger only.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64 to
> Java
> > > > long,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > >> >> treat
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > negative
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > values in a different way to preserve
> correct
> > > > > > ordering.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > These limitations will affect only mixed
> > > > > environments
> > > > > > >> when
> > > > > > >> >> > .Net
> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > used to access the data.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Will this solution address your issues?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel
> > Tupitsyn
> > > <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the
> > > > > beginning
> > > > > > >> with
> > > > > > >> >> > .NET
> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > C++
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > :)
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as cache
> > keys
> > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> values,
> > > > > > >> >> > as
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > fields
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > properties,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y
> > > clauses)
> > > > -
> > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> works
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > transparently
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the users.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats those
> > > values
> > > > > as
> > > > > > >> >> > > > corresponding
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > signed
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in some
> > cases
> > > > > only
> > > > > > >> >> because
> > > > > > >> >> > > > there
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > are
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > no
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very simple
> > > change
> > > > to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > protocol
> > > > > > >> >> > > > -
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > add
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as
> signed
> > > > > > >> >> counterparts.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey
> > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise
> > > > > > >> representation
> > > > > > >> >> is
> > > > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > same)
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a
> > uByte
> > > > > field
> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > >> >> map
> > > > > > >> >> > it
> > > > > > >> >> > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > 'uint8'
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > column.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to "250"
> and
> > > put
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> object
> > > > > > >> >> > > > into a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > table,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a single
> > byte
> > > > > > 'int8'
> > > > > > >> >> > column.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it to
> > > > > directly
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> >> Java
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > object
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > field
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8
> type
> > to
> > > > > Java
> > > > > > >> >> 'short'
> > > > > > >> >> > > type
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > because the one expected to see "250"
> as
> > a
> > > > > value
> > > > > > >> which
> > > > > > >> >> > > > doesn't
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > fit
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > signed type.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a
> BigInteger
> > > > field
> > > > > in
> > > > > > >> >> Java.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat column
> value
> > > as
> > > > > Java
> > > > > > >> >> 'byte'
> > > > > > >> >> > as
> > > > > > >> >> > > > is,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a negative
> > > value,
> > > > so
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> should
> > > > > > >> >> > > be
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > cast
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > short
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger for
> > > > uint64)
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will require a
> > > > > different
> > > > > > >> >> > > comparator.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel
> > > > Tupitsyn
> > > > > <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a
> good
> > > > idea.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the
> simple
> > > > > > approach
> > > > > > >> I
> > > > > > >> >> > > > described?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM
> Andrey
> > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing range
> > for
> > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > >> >> types
> > > > > > >> >> > > > then
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > we
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > could
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > add a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on
> > schema
> > > > > level
> > > > > > >> >> (like
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > nullability
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > flag)
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types in
> > > > storage.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate
> storage
> > > > > > >> type-system
> > > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > binary
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of type
> > will
> > > > > match
> > > > > > 1
> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > >> >> 1
> > > > > > >> >> > > with
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > storage
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (native)
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either have a
> > > > > separate
> > > > > > >> type
> > > > > > >> >> id
> > > > > > >> >> > or
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > treat
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > serialized
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed or
> > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > >> >> flag).
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever foresee
> > the
> > > > > > >> >> consequences
> > > > > > >> >> > of
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > using
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned
> types
> > > > > > perfectly
> > > > > > >> >> works
> > > > > > >> >> > > > with
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > some
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > database,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite successor
> > > > > > confession
> > > > > > >> >> with
> > > > > > >> >> > our
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > "native"
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he can use
> > the
> > > > > power
> > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > >> >> > Ignite
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Compute
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either fail
> to
> > > use
> > > > > his
> > > > > > >> >> > unsigned
> > > > > > >> >> > > > data
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > due
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due to
> > natural
> > > > Java
> > > > > > >> type
> > > > > > >> >> > system
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > limitations
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively supported
> > types
> > > > > with
> > > > > > >> >> possible
> > > > > > >> >> > > > value
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > ranges
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is what
> > trade-off
> > > > we
> > > > > > >> found
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > acceptable:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > narrowing
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use types of
> > > wider
> > > > > > >> range on
> > > > > > >> >> > > > systems
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > like
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Java.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM
> Igor
> > > > > Sapego <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so
> hard
> > > to
> > > > > > >> implement
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > comparison
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not
> > seem
> > > > to
> > > > > > be a
> > > > > > >> >> big
> > > > > > >> >> > > issue
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > from
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > my
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned
> types
> > > from
> > > > > > Java
> > > > > > >> - I
> > > > > > >> >> > > think,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > if
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to
> > interact
> > > > with
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> from
> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
> > > > > > >> >> > > > he
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > knows
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > he
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from
> > > platforms
> > > > > > where
> > > > > > >> >> they
> > > > > > >> >> > > have
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > native
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > widely
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where
> > > users
> > > > > > >> currently
> > > > > > >> >> > have
> > > > > > >> >> > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > make a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > manual
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > casting
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using unsigned
> > > types
> > > > > when
> > > > > > >> they
> > > > > > >> >> > use
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Ignite.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM
> > Pavel
> > > > > > >> Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for
> those
> > > > types
> > > > > > >> >> > (basically,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > just
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > add
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java
> > > > (bitwise
> > > > > > >> >> > > representation
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > same)
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned
> > > > > integers,
> > > > > > >> so
> > > > > > >> >> we
> > > > > > >> >> > can
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > simply
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > say
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative
> > comparison
> > > is
> > > > > not
> > > > > > >> >> > supported
> > > > > > >> >> > > > in
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (equality
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM
> > > > Andrey
> > > > > > >> >> Mashenkov
> > > > > > >> >> > <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have i8
> or
> > > > int8
> > > > > > >> >> instead of
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Integer.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't
> address
> > > the
> > > > > > issue.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types should
> > be
> > > > > > portable
> > > > > > >> >> > across
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > different
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > systems
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type
> support.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is that
> > > > unsigned
> > > > > > >> types
> > > > > > >> >> > cover
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > different
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > ranges.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to
> > > introduce a
> > > > > > >> uLong.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big
> deal
> > > to
> > > > > add
> > > > > > >> uLong
> > > > > > >> >> > type
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > support
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > storage
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and
> > then
> > > > use
> > > > > it
> > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > >> >> e.g.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > .Net
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > only.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support it
> in
> > > e.g.
> > > > > > Java?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range
> > is
> > > > > about
> > > > > > >> >> (2^-63
> > > > > > >> >> > ..
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 2^63)
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > range
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to
> > > restrict
> > > > > > range
> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > >> >> (0
> > > > > > >> >> > ..
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > 2^63).
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but
> > > > doesn't
> > > > > > look
> > > > > > >> >> like
> > > > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 'real'
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse when
> > the
> > > > > user
> > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > >> >> use
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > uByte,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > as
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > limitation
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map
> > > > unsigned
> > > > > > >> types
> > > > > > >> >> to a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > type
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > of
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > wider
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative
> > values.
> > > > > E.g.
> > > > > > >> >> uLong to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > BigInteger.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive
> Java
> > > > type
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> >> Long
> > > > > > >> >> > > here.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > However,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > still
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8
> > > bytes,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > >> >> have a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > special
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > comparator
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid
> > unwanted
> > > > > > >> >> > deserialization.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04
> PM
> > > > Pavel
> > > > > > >> >> Tupitsyn
> > > > > > >> >> > <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of
> > "long,
> > > > > short,
> > > > > > >> >> byte"
> > > > > > >> >> > in
> > > > > > >> >> > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style,
> which
> > is
> > > > > > concise
> > > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > unambiguous:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
> 1:58
> > PM
> > > > > Igor
> > > > > > >> >> Sapego <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support that.
> > Also,
> > > > if
> > > > > we
> > > > > > >> are
> > > > > > >> >> > > aiming
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger
> > > platform-independance,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may
> want
> > to
> > > > > > support
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > bit-notation
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (int32,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a
> different
> > > > type
> > > > > on
> > > > > > >> >> > different
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > platforms
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often when
> > > using
> > > > > ODBC
> > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > example).
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
> > 1:34
> > > PM
> > > > > > Pavel
> > > > > > >> >> > > Tupitsyn
> > > > > > >> >> > > > <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should
> support
> > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > >> >> data
> > > > > > >> >> > > > types:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt,
> > uLong
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have
> them,
> > > but
> > > > > many
> > > > > > >> >> other
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > languages
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > do,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing
> > number
> > > > of
> > > > > > thin
> > > > > > >> >> > clients
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > this
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in current
> > > > > > Ignite.NET
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > implementation
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain
> > > when
> > > > it
> > > > > > >> comes
> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > metadata,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > binary
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to
> > deserialize
> > > > int
> > > > > as
> > > > > > >> uint
> > > > > > >> >> > when
> > > > > > >> >> > > > you
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > class,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
> > > 12:28
> > > > > PM
> > > > > > >> >> Andrey
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Mashenkov <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both
> > > > serializers
> > > > > > use
> > > > > > >> >> > > reflection
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will
> allow
> > > > users
> > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > configure
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > static
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > along
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still
> > > need
> > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> validate
> > > > > > >> >> > > user
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > classes
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > client
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in
> > the
> > > > grid
> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > reflection
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few
> > > articles
> > > > > on
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> >> > > internet
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > on
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > how
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task
> for
> > > > > > supporting
> > > > > > >> >> > > GraalVM,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > maybe
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM
> > > will
> > > > > > >> suggest a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > solution
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > or
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit
> later.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is
> > > found,
> > > > we
> > > > > > >> could
> > > > > > >> >> > allow
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > users
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > own
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I
> don't
> > > > think
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > >> >> a
> > > > > > >> >> > > good
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > idea
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > expose
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the
> public.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020
> at
> > > > 2:55
> > > > > AM
> > > > > > >> >> Denis
> > > > > > >> >> > > > Magda <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for
> > the
> > > > > > update,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the
> > > > serializers
> > > > > > >> take
> > > > > > >> >> into
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > consideration
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > native-image-generation
> > > > > > >> feature of
> > > > > > >> >> > > > GraalVM?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current
> > binary
> > > > > > >> >> marshaller,
> > > > > > >> >> > we
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > can't
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > even
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > generate
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using
> > our
> > > > thin
> > > > > > >> client
> > > > > > >> >> > > APIs.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23,
> 2020
> > at
> > > > > 4:39
> > > > > > AM
> > > > > > >> >> > Andrey
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to
> > continue
> > > > > > >> discussion
> > > > > > >> >> of
> > > > > > >> >> > > > IEP-54
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who
> > is
> > > > > > >> interested
> > > > > > >> >> > had a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > chance
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not
> > > hesitate
> > > > > to
> > > > > > >> ask
> > > > > > >> >> > > > questions
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > share
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a
> > > > prototype
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> >> > > serializer
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > [2]
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > data
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I
> > > compared
> > > > 2
> > > > > > >> >> approaches
> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > (de)serialize
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java
> > > > > reflection/unsafe
> > > > > > >> API
> > > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > similar
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second
> one
> > > > > > generates
> > > > > > >> >> > > serializer
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library
> for
> > > > > > >> compilation.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows
> > > better
> > > > > > >> results
> > > > > > >> >> in
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > benchmarks.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go
> > > with
> > > > it
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > >> >> > default
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > serializer
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation
> as a
> > > > > > fallback
> > > > > > >> if
> > > > > > >> >> > > someone
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a
> number
> > of
> > > > > tasks
> > > > > > >> >> under
> > > > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > umbrella
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ticket
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to
> > > > create
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > >> >> > tickets
> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > manager
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation,
> but
> > > > would
> > > > > > >> like
> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > clarify
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > details.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought
> > > schemaManager
> > > > > on
> > > > > > >> each
> > > > > > >> >> > node
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > should
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > held:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local
> mapping
> > of
> > > > > > "schema
> > > > > > >> >> > > version"
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > <-->
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > validated
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide
> > > > schema
> > > > > > >> changes
> > > > > > >> >> > > > history.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client
> side.
> > > > > Before
> > > > > > >> any
> > > > > > >> >> > > > key-value
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > operation
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a
> given
> > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > >> >> pair.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no
> > > > > > local-mapping
> > > > > > >> >> exists
> > > > > > >> >> > > > for a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > given
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide
> schema
> > > > has a
> > > > > > >> more
> > > > > > >> >> > recent
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > version
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be
> validated
> > > > > against
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> >> > > latest
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > version
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> updated/actualized.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object
> > doesn't
> > > > fit
> > > > > to
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> >> > > latest
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > schema
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > depends
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail
> > the
> > > > > > >> operation
> > > > > > >> >> > > > ('strict'
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > mode)
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a new
> > > > schema
> > > > > > >> version
> > > > > > >> >> > > should
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > be
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > propagated
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server
> side
> > we
> > > > > > usually
> > > > > > >> >> have
> > > > > > >> >> > no
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > classes
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change
> > > > history
> > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > available
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > tuple
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to
> > > > upgrade
> > > > > > any
> > > > > > >> >> > > received
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > tuple
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > last
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could
> allow
> > > > nodes
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> send
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > key-value
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > pairs
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't
> > receive a
> > > > > > schema
> > > > > > >> >> update
> > > > > > >> >> > > > yet)
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > reverting
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node
> with
> > > > newer
> > > > > > >> >> classes.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan
> did
> > > you
> > > > > > mean
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> >> > > same?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17,
> > 2020
> > > at
> > > > > > 9:21
> > > > > > >> AM
> > > > > > >> >> > Ivan
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not
> > > ignore
> > > > > > >> history.
> > > > > > >> >> We
> > > > > > >> >> > > had
> > > > > > >> >> > > > a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can
> > > resume
> > > > > it.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08
> > > > > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > > >> >> Denis
> > > > > > >> >> > > > Magda
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes
> > sense,
> > > > > > thanks
> > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > explaining.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we
> > > need
> > > > to
> > > > > > >> have a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > separate
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms
> > > > > > >> substitution.
> > > > > > >> >> > I'll
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > appreciate
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing
> > pointers
> > > to
> > > > > any
> > > > > > >> >> > relevant
> > > > > > >> >> > > > IEPs
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > reasoning
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep
> 8,
> > > 2020
> > > > > at
> > > > > > >> 6:01
> > > > > > >> >> PM
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the
> > > > wording
> > > > > in
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> >> IEP
> > > > > > >> >> > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > little
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > bit
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you
> > should
> > > > not
> > > > > > >> create
> > > > > > >> >> > > nested
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > POJOs,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO
> > that
> > > > is
> > > > > > >> mapped
> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are
> not
> > > > > > supported.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is
> this
> > > > > correct?
> > > > > > >> >> Please
> > > > > > >> >> > > let
> > > > > > >> >> > > > me
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > know
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the
> > > "cache"
> > > > > > >> term, I
> > > > > > >> >> > agree
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > that
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can
> > > > replace
> > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> with.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > "Table"
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > tightly
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is
> > optional
> > > in
> > > > > our
> > > > > > >> >> case.
> > > > > > >> >> > Do
> > > > > > >> >> > > > you
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > want
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > create a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep
> 8,
> > > > 2020
> > > > > at
> > > > > > >> >> 4:37 PM
> > > > > > >> >> > > > Denis
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've
> checked
> > > the
> > > > > IEP
> > > > > > >> again
> > > > > > >> >> > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > have a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > few
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > questions.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary
> > > nested
> > > > > > >> objects
> > > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > collections
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested
> > POJOs
> > > > > should
> > > > > > >> >> either
> > > > > > >> >> > be
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > inlined
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you
> > > > provide a
> > > > > > DDL
> > > > > > >> >> code
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > snippet
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > showing
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to
> > > work?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we
> keep
> > > > using
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> terms
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > "cache"
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right
> > time
> > > to
> > > > > > >> discuss
> > > > > > >> >> an
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > alternate
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally,
> > the
> > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > >> >> > should
> > > > > > >> >> > > > stay
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is
> > one
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > primary
> > > > > > >> >> > > > APIs
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > in
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > out-of-the-box.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep
> > 7,
> > > > 2020
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > >> >> 12:26
> > > > > > >> >> > PM
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see
> your
> > > > > point. I
> > > > > > >> >> agree
> > > > > > >> >> > > that
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > with
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > automatic
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> schema-last
> > > > > > >> territory.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually,
> > if
> > > we
> > > > > > >> support
> > > > > > >> >> > > > automatic
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > evolution,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating
> a
> > > > cache
> > > > > > >> without
> > > > > > >> >> > > schema
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > inferring
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other
> > words,
> > > we
> > > > > can
> > > > > > >> have
> > > > > > >> >> > both
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey,
> > what
> > > do
> > > > > you
> > > > > > >> >> think?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon,
> Sep
> > > 7,
> > > > > 2020
> > > > > > >> at
> > > > > > >> >> 5:59
> > > > > > >> >> > > AM
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Alexey
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >> >> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank
> > you,
> > > I
> > > > > got
> > > > > > >> your
> > > > > > >> >> > > concern
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > now.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > As
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > terminology,
> > > > I
> > > > > am
> > > > > > >> >> > > absolutely
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > fine
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the
> > > approach
> > > > > > best.
> > > > > > >> >> > Dynamic
> > > > > > >> >> > > or
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > evolving
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > corresponding
> > > > > > >> changes
> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > IEP
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > once
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > settle
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7
> > сент.
> > > > > 2020
> > > > > > >> г. в
> > > > > > >> >> > > 11:33,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Ivan
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi
> Val,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank
> > you
> > > > for
> > > > > > >> your
> > > > > > >> >> > > answer!
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My
> > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > >> >> a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > little
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > bit
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > different.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > definitely
> > > > > > >> should be
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > possible.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > But
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > see
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> schema
> > is
> > > > > > >> updated".
> > > > > > >> >> I
> > > > > > >> >> > > > treat a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > common
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > data
> > > > > > >> >> manipulation
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > operations
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > clearly
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > interesting
> > > > > > >> >> > capabilities,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > preventing
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > mistaken
> > > > data
> > > > > > >> >> > operations,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > restricting
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> schema.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > Schema-first
> > > > > > >> means
> > > > > > >> >> > that
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > schema
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > exists
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > compliant
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> >> it -
> > > > > > >> >> > > > that's
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A
> > > > schema-last
> > > > > > >> >> approach
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > mentioned
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> exists,
> > > but
> > > > > it
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > inferred
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > from
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > data.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > proposing
> > > > > > >> approach?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I
> > > would
> > > > > > like
> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > >> >> > say,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > that
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > my
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > terminology.
> > > > > > And
> > > > > > >> I
> > > > > > >> >> > > suppose
> > > > > > >> >> > > > if
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > confuses
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > confused
> > > as
> > > > > > >> well. My
> > > > > > >> >> > > > feeling
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > closer
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > evolving
> > > > > > schema".
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > 2020-09-07
> > > > > 0:47
> > > > > > >> >> > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi
> > > Ivan,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I
> > don't
> > > > see
> > > > > > an
> > > > > > >> >> issue
> > > > > > >> >> > > with
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > that.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > advance
> > > > and
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > stored
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > data
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > compliant
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is
> > > > > proposed.
> > > > > > >> There
> > > > > > >> >> > are
> > > > > > >> >> > > no
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > restrictions
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> -Val
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On
> > Sat,
> > > > Sep
> > > > > > 5,
> > > > > > >> >> 2020
> > > > > > >> >> > at
> > > > > > >> >> > > > 9:52
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > PM
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ivan
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > Alexey,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I
> > am a
> > > > > > little
> > > > > > >> bit
> > > > > > >> >> > > > confused
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> to a
> > > > > survey
> > > > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > >> >> (see
> > > > > > >> >> > > > part
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > X
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Semi
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Structured
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > really
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a
> > > > "dynamic
> > > > > > >> >> schema"
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > approach
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > as a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > kind
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> [1]
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > 2020-09-02
> > > > > > >> 1:53
> > > > > > >> >> > > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > However,
> > > > > > >> could
> > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > please
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > ORM?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > Is
> > > > > there
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> use
> > > > > > >> >> > case
> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > (I
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > seen
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > one
> > > > so
> > > > > > >> far)?
> > > > > > >> >> If
> > > > > > >> >> > so,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > what
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > support
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > this?
> > > > > In
> > > > > > my
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > have.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > Am
> > > I
> > > > > > >> missing
> > > > > > >> >> > > > something?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > Good
> > > > > > point,
> > > > > > >> >> yes,
> > > > > > >> >> > if
> > > > > > >> >> > > > all
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > ORM
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > internally,
> > > > > > >> >> then
> > > > > > >> >> > > they
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > can
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > easily
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > translate
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> INSERT/UPDATE
> > > > > > >> >> > > > statement
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > that
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > lists
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > our
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > Spring
> > > > > > Data
> > > > > > >> >> > > > integration
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > based
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > APIs
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > needs
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> to
> > > be
> > > > > > >> improved
> > > > > > >> >> > once
> > > > > > >> >> > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > solve
> > > > a
> > > > > > ton
> > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > >> >> > > > usability
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> I
> > > > would
> > > > > > >> revise
> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> dev
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > phase.
> > > > > > Can't
> > > > > > >> >> say
> > > > > > >> >> > if
> > > > > > >> >> > > > it's
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > used
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > getting
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > traction
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > sure.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > @Michael
> > > > > > >> >> Pollind,
> > > > > > >> >> > > I'll
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > loop
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > long
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> support
> > > > > > >> >> for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Micornaut
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > came
> > > > > > across
> > > > > > >> >> some
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > challenges.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Just
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > watch
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > That's
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > coming
> > > > > in
> > > > > > >> >> Ignite
> > > > > > >> >> > > 3.0.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> -
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > Denis
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> On
> > > > Mon,
> > > > > > Aug
> > > > > > >> 31,
> > > > > > >> >> > 2020
> > > > > > >> >> > > > at
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > 5:11
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > Hi
> > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > Generally
> > > > > > >> >> > > speaking, I
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> natively
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > addresses
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> >> > issue
> > > > > > >> >> > > > if
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > duplicate
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > because
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > schema
> > > > > > >> will be
> > > > > > >> >> > > > created
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > cache,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> now.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > Basically,
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> >> > > schema
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > define
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > whether
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > not,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > and
> > > > > which
> > > > > > >> >> fields
> > > > > > >> >> > > are
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > included
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > would
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > have
> > > > > must
> > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > >> >> > > > compliant
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > this,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > with
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > data
> > > > as
> > > > > > >> with a
> > > > > > >> >> > set
> > > > > > >> >> > > of
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > records,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > However,
> > > > > > >> could
> > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > please
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > ORM?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > Is
> > > > > there
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> use
> > > > > > >> >> > case
> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > (I
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > seen
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > one
> > > > so
> > > > > > >> far)?
> > > > > > >> >> If
> > > > > > >> >> > so,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > what
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > support
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > this?
> > > > > In
> > > > > > my
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > have.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > Am
> > > I
> > > > > > >> missing
> > > > > > >> >> > > > something?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > -Val
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > On
> > > > Mon,
> > > > > > Aug
> > > > > > >> >> 31,
> > > > > > >> >> > > 2020
> > > > > > >> >> > > > at
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > 2:08
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > Val,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > I
> > > > > would
> > > > > > >> >> propose
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > adding
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > another
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > point
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > list
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > > related
> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > >> >> > > ORM
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > frameworks
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > Micronaut
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > many
> > > > > > >> others.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > > > >> Presently,
> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > storage
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > engine
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requires
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > from
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > value
> > > > > > >> ones
> > > > > > >> >> that
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > complicate
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > > > >> frameworks
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > > > >> (especially
> > > > > > >> >> if
> > > > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > key
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > object
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > comprises
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > More
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> can
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > be
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > found
> > > > > > >> here:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > It
> > > > > will
> > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > >> >> nice
> > > > > > >> >> > > if
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > new
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> with
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > > single
> > > > > > >> >> entity
> > > > > > >> >> > > > object
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > when
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > comes
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > split
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > > entity
> > > > > > >> into
> > > > > > >> >> a
> > > > > > >> >> > key
> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > value.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Just
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > 3.0
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > has
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > all
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > essential
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > public
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > APIs
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > single-entity
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > based
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > > > approach.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > What
> > > > > do
> > > > > > >> you
> > > > > > >> >> > > think?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > -
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > Denis
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > On
> > > > > Fri,
> > > > > > >> Aug
> > > > > > >> >> 28,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > 2020
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > at
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > 3:50
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >
> > > > > > >> Igniters,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >
> > > > One
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> >> > big
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proposed
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> "schema-first
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > approach".
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > To
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >
> > > > > > started
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> writing
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >
> > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > IEP
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >
> > > > for
> > > > > > >> this
> > > > > > >> >> > > change:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >
> > > > > > Please
> > > > > > >> >> take a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > look
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > let
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >
> > > > > > >> thoughts,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> suggestions,
> > > > > > >> >> > or
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > objections.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >
> > > > > -Val
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> Best
> > > > > > regards,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> Ivan
> > > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best
> > > > regards,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan
> > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V.
> Mashenkov
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > --
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > --
> > > > > > >> >> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >
>


-- 
Best regards,
Andrey V. Mashenkov

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>]

I see, thanks.

Let's discuss the return type - Future is not the one to use.
We should return CompletionStage, CompletableFuture, or introduce our own
interface.
We agreed on the last one (custom interface) for thin clients:
http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/IEP-51-Java-Thin-Client-Async-API-td48900.html

I believe that for Ignite 3.0 we should have the following:
public interface IgniteFuture<T> extends Future<T>, CompletionStage<T> {
    // No-op.
}

Thoughts?


On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:16 AM Andrey Mashenkov <
andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:

> Pavel,
> There are 2 PR's for the ticket[1] with two different APIs  suggested.
> Please, take a look at PR [2].
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14035
> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/69
>
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:11 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Andrey, I can't find any async methods,
> > can you please check if the changes are pushed?
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 10:06 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Pavel, good point.
> > > Thanks. I've added async methods.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 2:29 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Andrey,
> > > >
> > > > What about corresponding async APIs, do we add them now or later?
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 8:11 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Igniters.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've created a PR for Table access API [1].
> > > > > This is an initial version. So, any suggestions\objections are
> > > welcomed.
> > > > > Please, do not hesitate to write your comments and\or examples to
> the
> > > PR.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ignite-api module contains API classes, e.g. TableView classes as
> > > > > projections for a table for different purposes.
> > > > > Ignite-table contains dummy implementation and Example class
> > explained
> > > > how
> > > > > it is supposed to be used.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, I'm still waiting for any feedback for Schema configuration
> > > public
> > > > > API PR [2].
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/33
> > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:05 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've updated a PR regarding your feedback [1].
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:58 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Folks,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I updated the IEP to contain the missing pieces; actually, most
> of
> > > the
> > > > > >> questions here were covered by the text. Please let me know if
> > there
> > > > is
> > > > > >> something still missing or unclear.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> чт, 31 дек. 2020 г. в 12:48, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > > > > >> >:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > Mikhail and Igniters,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Thanks for your comments. The questions are reasonable,
> though I
> > > > think
> > > > > >> all
> > > > > >> > concerns are addressed by the IEP as Val mentioned. I will
> > update
> > > > the
> > > > > >> > document according to your questions in the following week or
> > so,
> > > so
> > > > > we
> > > > > >> can
> > > > > >> > have a constructive discussion further.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > ср, 30 дек. 2020 г. в 11:45, Michael Cherkasov <
> > > > > >> > michael.cherkasov@gmail.com>:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> Hi Val, Andrey,
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> thank you for clarifying.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> I still have a few comments.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> 1. one table == one schema. KV vs SQL:
> > > > > >> >> Looks like all agreed that KV is just a special case of a
> > regular
> > > > > table
> > > > > >> >> with (blob,blob) schema.
> > > > > >> >> I worry about the case when the user starts from KV case and
> > > later
> > > > > will
> > > > > >> >> try
> > > > > >> >> to expand it and try to leverage SQL for the existing KV
> table
> > it
> > > > > >> won't be
> > > > > >> >> able to do so and will require to reload data. which isn't
> > > > convenient
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> >> sometimes not even possible. Is it possible to extract a new
> > > field
> > > > > from
> > > > > >> >> (blob, blob) schema and apply index on it?
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> 2. Could you please also list all ways of schema definition
> in
> > > the
> > > > > >> IEP? It
> > > > > >> >> significant change and I bet the main point of this IEP,
> > everyone
> > > > > hates
> > > > > >> >> QueryEntities, they are difficult to manage and in general,
> > it's
> > > > very
> > > > > >> >> confusing to have a data model(schemas) and node/cluster
> > > > > configuration
> > > > > >> in
> > > > > >> >> one place.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> So there will be SchemaBuilder and SQL to define schemas, but
> > > > Andrey
> > > > > >> also
> > > > > >> >> mentioned annotations.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> I personally against configuration via annotations, while
> it's
> > > > > >> convenient
> > > > > >> >> for development, it difficult to manage because different
> > classes
> > > > can
> > > > > >> be
> > > > > >> >> deployed on different clients/servers nodes and it can lead
> to
> > > > > >> >> unpredictable results.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> 3. IEP doesn't mention field type changes, only drop/add
> > fields.
> > > > > Field
> > > > > >> >> type
> > > > > >> >> changes are extremely painful right now(if even possible), so
> > it
> > > > > would
> > > > > >> be
> > > > > >> >> nice if some scenarios would be supported(like int8->int16,
> or
> > > > > >> >> int8->String).
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> 4. got it, I thought IEP will have more details about the
> > > > > >> implementation.
> > > > > >> >> I've seen Andrey even sent benchmark results for a new
> > > > serialization,
> > > > > >> will
> > > > > >> >> ping him about this.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> 5. Thanks for the clarification. I had a wrong understanding
> of
> > > > > strick
> > > > > >> >> mode.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> вт, 29 дек. 2020 г. в 19:32, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > >> >> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> > Hi Mike,
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > Thanks for providing your feedback. Please see my comments
> > > below.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > I would also encourage you to go through the IEP-54 [1] -
> it
> > > has
> > > > a
> > > > > >> lot
> > > > > >> >> of
> > > > > >> >> > detail on the topic.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > [1]
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > -Val
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:22 PM Michael Cherkasov <
> > > > > >> >> > michael.cherkasov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > Hi all,
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > I reviewed the mail thread and proposal page and I still
> > > don't
> > > > > >> fully
> > > > > >> >> > > understand what is going to be changed, I would really
> > > > appreciate
> > > > > >> it
> > > > > >> >> if
> > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > >> >> > > will answer a few questions:
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > 1. Are you going to leave only one schema per cache? if
> so,
> > > > will
> > > > > be
> > > > > >> >> there
> > > > > >> >> > > an option to have a table with arbitrary objects(pure KV
> > > case)?
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > My opinion is that KV case should be natively supported. I
> > > think
> > > > > this
> > > > > >> >> still
> > > > > >> >> > needs to be thought over, my current view on this is that
> we
> > > > should
> > > > > >> have
> > > > > >> >> > separate APIs for KV and more generic storages. KV storage
> > can
> > > be
> > > > > >> >> > implemented as a "table" with two BLOB fields where we will
> > > store
> > > > > >> >> > serialized key-value pairs. That would imply
> deserialization
> > on
> > > > > read,
> > > > > >> >> but I
> > > > > >> >> > believe this is OK for KV use cases. I'm happy to hear
> other
> > > > ideas
> > > > > >> >> though
> > > > > >> >> > :)
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0 have to define
> > schema?
> > > > > >> >> > SchemaBuilder
> > > > > >> >> > > and SQL only? Is there an option to put the schema
> > definition
> > > > to
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> >> > > configuration?(I really don't like this, I would prefer
> to
> > > have
> > > > > >> >> > > separate scripts to create schemas)
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > There will be no such thing as a static configuration in
> the
> > > > first
> > > > > >> >> place.
> > > > > >> >> > Tables and schemas are created in runtime. Even if there
> is a
> > > > file
> > > > > >> >> provided
> > > > > >> >> > on node startup, this file is only applied in the scope of
> > the
> > > > > >> 'start'
> > > > > >> >> > operation. All configurations will be stored in a meta
> > storage
> > > > > >> >> available to
> > > > > >> >> > all nodes, as opposed to individual files.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > 3. Is there a way to change field type? if yes, can it be
> > > done
> > > > in
> > > > > >> >> > runtime?
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > Absolutely! IEP-54 has a whole section about schema
> > evolution.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going to be re-worked
> > too,
> > > is
> > > > > >> there
> > > > > >> >> any
> > > > > >> >> > > IEP for this?
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > BinaryMarshaller as a tool for arbitrary object
> serialization
> > > > will
> > > > > be
> > > > > >> >> gone,
> > > > > >> >> > but we will reuse a lot of its concept to implement an
> > internal
> > > > > tuple
> > > > > >> >> > serialization mechanism. IEP-54 has the description of the
> > > > proposed
> > > > > >> data
> > > > > >> >> > format.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > 5. I don't like automatic schema evaluation when a new
> > field
> > > is
> > > > > >> added
> > > > > >> >> > > automatically on record put, so is there a way to
> prohibit
> > > this
> > > > > >> >> behavior?
> > > > > >> >> > >  I think all schema changes should be done only
> explicitly
> > > > except
> > > > > >> >> initial
> > > > > >> >> > > schema creation.
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > The way I see it is that we should have two modes:
> > schema-first
> > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > schema-last. Schema-first means exactly what you've
> > described -
> > > > > >> schemas
> > > > > >> >> are
> > > > > >> >> > defined and updated explicitly by the user. In the
> > schema-last
> > > > > mode,
> > > > > >> >> > the user does not deal with schemas, as they are inferred
> > from
> > > > the
> > > > > >> data
> > > > > >> >> > inserted into tables. We should definitely not mix these
> > modes
> > > -
> > > > it
> > > > > >> has
> > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > >> >> > be one or another. And it probably makes sense to discuss
> > which
> > > > > mode
> > > > > >> >> should
> > > > > >> >> > be the default one.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > Thanks,
> > > > > >> >> > > Mike.
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > >> >> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > >> >> > > >:
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > Hi, Igniters.
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > We all know that the current QueryEntity API is not
> > > > convenient
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> >> > needs
> > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > be reworked.
> > > > > >> >> > > > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema configuration
> > > public
> > > > > API
> > > > > >> >> for
> > > > > >> >> > > > Ignite 3.0.
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > New schema configuration uses Builder pattern, which
> > looks
> > > > more
> > > > > >> >> > > comfortable
> > > > > >> >> > > > to use.
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package with the API
> > > > itself,
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> >> a
> > > > > >> >> > > draft
> > > > > >> >> > > > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
> > > > > >> >> > > > and a test that demonstrates how the API could be used.
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > Please note:
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with static
> > factory
> > > > > >> methods.
> > > > > >> >> > > > * The implementation is decoupled and can be easily
> > > extracted
> > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > separate
> > > > > >> >> > > > module if we decide to do so.
> > > > > >> >> > > > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are missed, they
> > will
> > > > be
> > > > > >> added
> > > > > >> >> > > lately
> > > > > >> >> > > > in separate tickes.
> > > > > >> >> > > > * Index configuration extends marker interface that
> makes
> > > > > >> possible
> > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > >> >> > > > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
> > > > > >> >> > > > Hopfully, we could add a persistent geo-indices support
> > in
> > > > > >> future.
> > > > > >> >> > > > * Supposedly, current table schema can be changed via
> > > > > >> builder-like
> > > > > >> >> > > > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See
> > > > > >> >> 'TableModificationBuilder'
> > > > > >> >> > > for
> > > > > >> >> > > > details.
> > > > > >> >> > > > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have 'toBuilder()'
> > > > converter
> > > > > >> for
> > > > > >> >> that
> > > > > >> >> > > > purpose as it is a Schema Manager responsibility to
> > create
> > > > > >> mutator
> > > > > >> >> > > objects
> > > > > >> >> > > > from the current schema,
> > > > > >> >> > > > but implementing the Schema manager is out of scope and
> > > will
> > > > be
> > > > > >> >> > designed
> > > > > >> >> > > > within the next task.
> > > > > >> >> > > > * Interfaces implementations are out of scope. I did
> not
> > > > intend
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> >> > merge
> > > > > >> >> > > > them right now, but for test/demostration purposes.
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > It is NOT the final version and some may be changed
> > before
> > > > the
> > > > > >> first
> > > > > >> >> > > > release of course.
> > > > > >> >> > > > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed with this
> > > > approach
> > > > > or
> > > > > >> >> some
> > > > > >> >> > > > issues should be resolved at first.
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > Any thoughts or objections?
> > > > > >> >> > > > Are interfaces good enough to be merged within the
> > current
> > > > > >> ticket?
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <
> > > > > >> jury.gerzhedowich@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> >> > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types:
> > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
> > > > > >> >> > > > > 2. It requires adding new types to the internal
> > > > > representation,
> > > > > >> >> > > protocol,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > e.t.c.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > 3. internal representation should be the same as we
> > keep
> > > > sign
> > > > > >> >> types.
> > > > > >> >> > So
> > > > > >> >> > > > it
> > > > > >> >> > > > > will not requires more memory
> > > > > >> >> > > > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such types for
> > > > platforms
> > > > > >> >> which
> > > > > >> >> > not
> > > > > >> >> > > > > support unsigned types. For example, a user could
> > derive
> > > -6
> > > > > >> value
> > > > > >> >> in
> > > > > >> >> > > Java
> > > > > >> >> > > > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits perspective
> will
> > > be
> > > > > >> >> right). I
> > > > > >> >> > > > think
> > > > > >> >> > > > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such cases,
> > > especially
> > > > it
> > > > > >> >> will be
> > > > > >> >> > > bad
> > > > > >> >> > > > > for unsigned long when we require returns BigInteger
> > > type.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix for new
> > types
> > > > > like
> > > > > >> a
> > > > > >> >> > > '250u' -
> > > > > >> >> > > > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive comparison
> > > logic
> > > > > for
> > > > > >> >> > indexes
> > > > > >> >> > > > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for expressions.
> I
> > > > think
> > > > > it
> > > > > >> >> not
> > > > > >> >> > > > > possible for the current H2 engine and probably
> > possible
> > > > for
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> >> new
> > > > > >> >> > > > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from anybody who
> > > > involved
> > > > > in
> > > > > >> >> this
> > > > > >> >> > > part
> > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > >> >> > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > > > > >> >> > > > > >:
> > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0: once
> we
> > > the
> > > > > >> actual
> > > > > >> >> > type
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > information, we can make proper runtime adjustments
> > and
> > > > > >> >> conversions
> > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will be just a
> > bit
> > > > more
> > > > > >> >> > > expensive.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > >> >> ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > >> >> > >:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons and so
> > on
> > > > are
> > > > > >> >> broken
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned this
> > > > > somewhere
> > > > > >> >> > above.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document that SQL is
> > not
> > > > > >> >> supported
> > > > > >> >> > on
> > > > > >> >> > > > > those
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > types,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > end of story.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey Goncharuk
> <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable request. I
> > > > thought
> > > > > >> about
> > > > > >> >> > this
> > > > > >> >> > > > > when
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > I
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add
> these
> > > > types
> > > > > >> right
> > > > > >> >> > > away.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the
> > > beginning
> > > > > with
> > > > > >> >> .NET
> > > > > >> >> > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > C++
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > :)
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually works as
> > > > expected,
> > > > > it
> > > > > >> >> needs
> > > > > >> >> > > > some
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns are
> false):
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - It's true that equality check works
> > properly,
> > > > but
> > > > > >> for
> > > > > >> >> SQL
> > > > > >> >> > > > range
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    queries it will break unless some special
> care
> > > is
> > > > > >> taken
> > > > > >> >> on
> > > > > >> >> > > Java
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > side:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will be
> > > > converted
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> >> -1,
> > > > > >> >> > > > which
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we don't have
> > > unsigned
> > > > > >> types
> > > > > >> >> > now,
> > > > > >> >> > > I
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > doubt
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    works.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - There is an obvious cross-platform data
> loss
> > > > when
> > > > > >> >> > > "intuitive"
> > > > > >> >> > > > > type
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8 corresponds to
> > > byte
> > > > > >> type in
> > > > > >> >> > > .NET,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > but
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have to use
> > short
> > > > > type
> > > > > >> in
> > > > > >> >> > Java,
> > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    will also need to take care of the range
> check
> > > > > during
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > serialization).
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > I
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    think we can even allow to try to
> deserialize
> > a
> > > > > value
> > > > > >> >> into
> > > > > >> >> > > > > arbitrary
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > type,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    but throw an exception if the range is out
> of
> > > > > bounds.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once all
> the
> > > > > details
> > > > > >> >> are
> > > > > >> >> > > > settled
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > here?
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey Mashenkov
> <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't be
> > > treated
> > > > > >> >> correctly
> > > > > >> >> > > for
> > > > > >> >> > > > > now
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I think we could make "true" support for
> > unsigned
> > > > > >> types,
> > > > > >> >> but
> > > > > >> >> > > they
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map uint64
> to
> > > > Java
> > > > > >> long
> > > > > >> >> > > > > primitive,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > but
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > BigInteger only.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64 to Java
> > > long,
> > > > > but
> > > > > >> >> treat
> > > > > >> >> > > > > negative
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > values in a different way to preserve correct
> > > > > ordering.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > These limitations will affect only mixed
> > > > environments
> > > > > >> when
> > > > > >> >> > .Net
> > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Java
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > used to access the data.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Will this solution address your issues?
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel
> Tupitsyn
> > <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the
> > > > beginning
> > > > > >> with
> > > > > >> >> > .NET
> > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > C++
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > :)
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as cache
> keys
> > > and
> > > > > >> >> values,
> > > > > >> >> > as
> > > > > >> >> > > > > fields
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > properties,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y
> > clauses)
> > > -
> > > > it
> > > > > >> >> works
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > transparently
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the users.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats those
> > values
> > > > as
> > > > > >> >> > > > corresponding
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > signed
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in some
> cases
> > > > only
> > > > > >> >> because
> > > > > >> >> > > > there
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > are
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > no
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very simple
> > change
> > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > protocol
> > > > > >> >> > > > -
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > add
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > type
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as signed
> > > > > >> >> counterparts.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey
> > > Mashenkov
> > > > <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise
> > > > > >> representation
> > > > > >> >> is
> > > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > same)
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a
> uByte
> > > > field
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> >> map
> > > > > >> >> > it
> > > > > >> >> > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > 'uint8'
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > column.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to "250" and
> > put
> > > > the
> > > > > >> >> object
> > > > > >> >> > > > into a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > table,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a single
> byte
> > > > > 'int8'
> > > > > >> >> > column.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it to
> > > > directly
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> >> Java
> > > > > >> >> > > > > object
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > field
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8 type
> to
> > > > Java
> > > > > >> >> 'short'
> > > > > >> >> > > type
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > because the one expected to see "250" as
> a
> > > > value
> > > > > >> which
> > > > > >> >> > > > doesn't
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > fit
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > signed type.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a BigInteger
> > > field
> > > > in
> > > > > >> >> Java.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat column value
> > as
> > > > Java
> > > > > >> >> 'byte'
> > > > > >> >> > as
> > > > > >> >> > > > is,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > because
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a negative
> > value,
> > > so
> > > > > it
> > > > > >> >> should
> > > > > >> >> > > be
> > > > > >> >> > > > > cast
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > short
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger for
> > > uint64)
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will require a
> > > > different
> > > > > >> >> > > comparator.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel
> > > Tupitsyn
> > > > <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a good
> > > idea.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the simple
> > > > > approach
> > > > > >> I
> > > > > >> >> > > > described?
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrey
> > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > >> <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing range
> for
> > > > > unsigned
> > > > > >> >> types
> > > > > >> >> > > > then
> > > > > >> >> > > > > we
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > could
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > add a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on
> schema
> > > > level
> > > > > >> >> (like
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > nullability
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > flag)
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types in
> > > storage.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate storage
> > > > > >> type-system
> > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > >> >> > > > binary
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > protocol
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of type
> will
> > > > match
> > > > > 1
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> >> 1
> > > > > >> >> > > with
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > storage
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (native)
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either have a
> > > > separate
> > > > > >> type
> > > > > >> >> id
> > > > > >> >> > or
> > > > > >> >> > > > > treat
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > serialized
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed or
> > > > unsigned
> > > > > >> >> flag).
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever foresee
> the
> > > > > >> >> consequences
> > > > > >> >> > of
> > > > > >> >> > > > > using
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned types
> > > > > perfectly
> > > > > >> >> works
> > > > > >> >> > > > with
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > some
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > database,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite successor
> > > > > confession
> > > > > >> >> with
> > > > > >> >> > our
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > "native"
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he can use
> the
> > > > power
> > > > > >> of
> > > > > >> >> > Ignite
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > Compute
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either fail to
> > use
> > > > his
> > > > > >> >> > unsigned
> > > > > >> >> > > > data
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > on
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Java
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > due
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due to
> natural
> > > Java
> > > > > >> type
> > > > > >> >> > system
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > limitations
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively supported
> types
> > > > with
> > > > > >> >> possible
> > > > > >> >> > > > value
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > ranges
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is what
> trade-off
> > > we
> > > > > >> found
> > > > > >> >> > > > > acceptable:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > narrowing
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use types of
> > wider
> > > > > >> range on
> > > > > >> >> > > > systems
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > like
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Java.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor
> > > > Sapego <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so hard
> > to
> > > > > >> implement
> > > > > >> >> > > > > comparison
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > of
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not
> seem
> > > to
> > > > > be a
> > > > > >> >> big
> > > > > >> >> > > issue
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > from
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > my
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned types
> > from
> > > > > Java
> > > > > >> - I
> > > > > >> >> > > think,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > if
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > user
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to
> interact
> > > with
> > > > > it
> > > > > >> >> from
> > > > > >> >> > > Java
> > > > > >> >> > > > he
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > knows
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > he
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from
> > platforms
> > > > > where
> > > > > >> >> they
> > > > > >> >> > > have
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > native
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > widely
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where
> > users
> > > > > >> currently
> > > > > >> >> > have
> > > > > >> >> > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > make a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > manual
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > casting
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using unsigned
> > types
> > > > when
> > > > > >> they
> > > > > >> >> > use
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > Ignite.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM
> Pavel
> > > > > >> Tupitsyn <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for those
> > > types
> > > > > >> >> > (basically,
> > > > > >> >> > > > just
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > add
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java
> > > (bitwise
> > > > > >> >> > > representation
> > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > same)
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned
> > > > integers,
> > > > > >> so
> > > > > >> >> we
> > > > > >> >> > can
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > simply
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > say
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative
> comparison
> > is
> > > > not
> > > > > >> >> > supported
> > > > > >> >> > > > in
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > SQL
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (equality
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM
> > > Andrey
> > > > > >> >> Mashenkov
> > > > > >> >> > <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have i8 or
> > > int8
> > > > > >> >> instead of
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > Integer.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't address
> > the
> > > > > issue.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types should
> be
> > > > > portable
> > > > > >> >> > across
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > different
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > systems
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type support.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is that
> > > unsigned
> > > > > >> types
> > > > > >> >> > cover
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > different
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > ranges.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to
> > introduce a
> > > > > >> uLong.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big deal
> > to
> > > > add
> > > > > >> uLong
> > > > > >> >> > type
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > support
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > at
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > storage
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and
> then
> > > use
> > > > it
> > > > > >> in
> > > > > >> >> e.g.
> > > > > >> >> > > > .Net
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > only.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support it in
> > e.g.
> > > > > Java?
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range
> is
> > > > about
> > > > > >> >> (2^-63
> > > > > >> >> > ..
> > > > > >> >> > > > > 2^63)
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > range
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to
> > restrict
> > > > > range
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> >> (0
> > > > > >> >> > ..
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > 2^63).
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > This
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but
> > > doesn't
> > > > > look
> > > > > >> >> like
> > > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > 'real'
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse when
> the
> > > > user
> > > > > >> will
> > > > > >> >> use
> > > > > >> >> > > > > uByte,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > as
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > limitation
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map
> > > unsigned
> > > > > >> types
> > > > > >> >> to a
> > > > > >> >> > > > type
> > > > > >> >> > > > > of
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > wider
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative
> values.
> > > > E.g.
> > > > > >> >> uLong to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > BigInteger.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive Java
> > > type
> > > > > for
> > > > > >> >> Long
> > > > > >> >> > > here.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > However,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > still
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8
> > bytes,
> > > > but
> > > > > >> >> have a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > special
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > comparator
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid
> unwanted
> > > > > >> >> > deserialization.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM
> > > Pavel
> > > > > >> >> Tupitsyn
> > > > > >> >> > <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of
> "long,
> > > > short,
> > > > > >> >> byte"
> > > > > >> >> > in
> > > > > >> >> > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > protocol
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style, which
> is
> > > > > concise
> > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > unambiguous:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58
> PM
> > > > Igor
> > > > > >> >> Sapego <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support that.
> Also,
> > > if
> > > > we
> > > > > >> are
> > > > > >> >> > > aiming
> > > > > >> >> > > > > for
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger
> > platform-independance,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may want
> to
> > > > > support
> > > > > >> >> > > > > bit-notation
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (int32,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a different
> > > type
> > > > on
> > > > > >> >> > different
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > platforms
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often when
> > using
> > > > ODBC
> > > > > >> for
> > > > > >> >> > > > example).
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
> 1:34
> > PM
> > > > > Pavel
> > > > > >> >> > > Tupitsyn
> > > > > >> >> > > > <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should support
> > > > > unsigned
> > > > > >> >> data
> > > > > >> >> > > > types:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt,
> uLong
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have them,
> > but
> > > > many
> > > > > >> >> other
> > > > > >> >> > > > > languages
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > do,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing
> number
> > > of
> > > > > thin
> > > > > >> >> > clients
> > > > > >> >> > > > > this
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in current
> > > > > Ignite.NET
> > > > > >> >> > > > > implementation
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > we
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > store
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain
> > when
> > > it
> > > > > >> comes
> > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > metadata,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > binary
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to
> deserialize
> > > int
> > > > as
> > > > > >> uint
> > > > > >> >> > when
> > > > > >> >> > > > you
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > have
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > class,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
> > 12:28
> > > > PM
> > > > > >> >> Andrey
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > Mashenkov <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both
> > > serializers
> > > > > use
> > > > > >> >> > > reflection
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > API.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will allow
> > > users
> > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > configure
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > static
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > along
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still
> > need
> > > to
> > > > > >> >> validate
> > > > > >> >> > > user
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > classes
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > client
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in
> the
> > > grid
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> >> > > > reflection
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > API
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few
> > articles
> > > > on
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> >> > > internet
> > > > > >> >> > > > > on
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > how
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task for
> > > > > supporting
> > > > > >> >> > > GraalVM,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > maybe
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM
> > will
> > > > > >> suggest a
> > > > > >> >> > > > solution
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > or
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proper
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is
> > found,
> > > we
> > > > > >> could
> > > > > >> >> > allow
> > > > > >> >> > > > > users
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > write
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > own
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I don't
> > > think
> > > > > it
> > > > > >> is
> > > > > >> >> a
> > > > > >> >> > > good
> > > > > >> >> > > > > idea
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > expose
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the public.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
> > > 2:55
> > > > AM
> > > > > >> >> Denis
> > > > > >> >> > > > Magda <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for
> the
> > > > > update,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the
> > > serializers
> > > > > >> take
> > > > > >> >> into
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > consideration
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> native-image-generation
> > > > > >> feature of
> > > > > >> >> > > > GraalVM?
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current
> binary
> > > > > >> >> marshaller,
> > > > > >> >> > we
> > > > > >> >> > > > > can't
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > even
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > generate
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using
> our
> > > thin
> > > > > >> client
> > > > > >> >> > > APIs.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020
> at
> > > > 4:39
> > > > > AM
> > > > > >> >> > Andrey
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to
> continue
> > > > > >> discussion
> > > > > >> >> of
> > > > > >> >> > > > IEP-54
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who
> is
> > > > > >> interested
> > > > > >> >> > had a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > chance
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > get
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not
> > hesitate
> > > > to
> > > > > >> ask
> > > > > >> >> > > > questions
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > share
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a
> > > prototype
> > > > > of
> > > > > >> >> > > serializer
> > > > > >> >> > > > > [2]
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > for
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > data
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I
> > compared
> > > 2
> > > > > >> >> approaches
> > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > (de)serialize
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java
> > > > reflection/unsafe
> > > > > >> API
> > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > similar
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second one
> > > > > generates
> > > > > >> >> > > serializer
> > > > > >> >> > > > > for
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library for
> > > > > >> compilation.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows
> > better
> > > > > >> results
> > > > > >> >> in
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > benchmarks.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go
> > with
> > > it
> > > > > as
> > > > > >> >> > default
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > serializer
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation as a
> > > > > fallback
> > > > > >> if
> > > > > >> >> > > someone
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a number
> of
> > > > tasks
> > > > > >> >> under
> > > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > umbrella
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ticket
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to
> > > create
> > > > > more
> > > > > >> >> > tickets
> > > > > >> >> > > > for
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > manager
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation, but
> > > would
> > > > > >> like
> > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > >> >> > > > clarify
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > some
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > details.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought
> > schemaManager
> > > > on
> > > > > >> each
> > > > > >> >> > node
> > > > > >> >> > > > > should
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > held:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping
> of
> > > > > "schema
> > > > > >> >> > > version"
> > > > > >> >> > > > > <-->
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > validated
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide
> > > schema
> > > > > >> changes
> > > > > >> >> > > > history.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client side.
> > > > Before
> > > > > >> any
> > > > > >> >> > > > key-value
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > API
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > operation
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a given
> > > > > key-value
> > > > > >> >> pair.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no
> > > > > local-mapping
> > > > > >> >> exists
> > > > > >> >> > > > for a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > given
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema
> > > has a
> > > > > >> more
> > > > > >> >> > recent
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > version
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be validated
> > > > against
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> >> > > latest
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > version
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object
> doesn't
> > > fit
> > > > to
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> >> > > latest
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > schema
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > depends
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail
> the
> > > > > >> operation
> > > > > >> >> > > > ('strict'
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > mode)
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a new
> > > schema
> > > > > >> version
> > > > > >> >> > > should
> > > > > >> >> > > > > be
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > propagated
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server side
> we
> > > > > usually
> > > > > >> >> have
> > > > > >> >> > no
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > classes
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change
> > > history
> > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > available
> > > > > >> >> > > > > and a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > tuple
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to
> > > upgrade
> > > > > any
> > > > > >> >> > > received
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > tuple
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > last
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow
> > > nodes
> > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> send
> > > > > >> >> > > > > key-value
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > pairs
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't
> receive a
> > > > > schema
> > > > > >> >> update
> > > > > >> >> > > > yet)
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > without
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > reverting
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node with
> > > newer
> > > > > >> >> classes.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did
> > you
> > > > > mean
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> >> > > same?
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >>
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17,
> 2020
> > at
> > > > > 9:21
> > > > > >> AM
> > > > > >> >> > Ivan
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not
> > ignore
> > > > > >> history.
> > > > > >> >> We
> > > > > >> >> > > had
> > > > > >> >> > > > a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > thread
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can
> > resume
> > > > it.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08
> > > > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > >> >> Denis
> > > > > >> >> > > > Magda
> > > > > >> >> > > > > <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes
> sense,
> > > > > thanks
> > > > > >> for
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > explaining.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we
> > need
> > > to
> > > > > >> have a
> > > > > >> >> > > > separate
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms
> > > > > >> substitution.
> > > > > >> >> > I'll
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > appreciate
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing
> pointers
> > to
> > > > any
> > > > > >> >> > relevant
> > > > > >> >> > > > IEPs
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > reasoning
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8,
> > 2020
> > > > at
> > > > > >> 6:01
> > > > > >> >> PM
> > > > > >> >> > > > > Valentin
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the
> > > wording
> > > > in
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> >> IEP
> > > > > >> >> > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > little
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > bit
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you
> should
> > > not
> > > > > >> create
> > > > > >> >> > > nested
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > POJOs,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO
> that
> > > is
> > > > > >> mapped
> > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > particular
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not
> > > > > supported.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this
> > > > correct?
> > > > > >> >> Please
> > > > > >> >> > > let
> > > > > >> >> > > > me
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > know
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the
> > "cache"
> > > > > >> term, I
> > > > > >> >> > agree
> > > > > >> >> > > > > that
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > it
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can
> > > replace
> > > > it
> > > > > >> >> with.
> > > > > >> >> > > > "Table"
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > tightly
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is
> optional
> > in
> > > > our
> > > > > >> >> case.
> > > > > >> >> > Do
> > > > > >> >> > > > you
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > want
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > create a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8,
> > > 2020
> > > > at
> > > > > >> >> 4:37 PM
> > > > > >> >> > > > Denis
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked
> > the
> > > > IEP
> > > > > >> again
> > > > > >> >> > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > have a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > few
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > questions.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary
> > nested
> > > > > >> objects
> > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > collections
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested
> POJOs
> > > > should
> > > > > >> >> either
> > > > > >> >> > be
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > inlined
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you
> > > provide a
> > > > > DDL
> > > > > >> >> code
> > > > > >> >> > > > > snippet
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > showing
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to
> > work?
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep
> > > using
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> terms
> > > > > >> >> > > > > "cache"
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right
> time
> > to
> > > > > >> discuss
> > > > > >> >> an
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > alternate
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > name
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally,
> the
> > > > > "table"
> > > > > >> >> > should
> > > > > >> >> > > > stay
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is
> one
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > primary
> > > > > >> >> > > > APIs
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > in
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> out-of-the-box.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep
> 7,
> > > 2020
> > > > > at
> > > > > >> >> 12:26
> > > > > >> >> > PM
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your
> > > > point. I
> > > > > >> >> agree
> > > > > >> >> > > that
> > > > > >> >> > > > > with
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > automatic
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last
> > > > > >> territory.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually,
> if
> > we
> > > > > >> support
> > > > > >> >> > > > automatic
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > evolution,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a
> > > cache
> > > > > >> without
> > > > > >> >> > > schema
> > > > > >> >> > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > inferring
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other
> words,
> > we
> > > > can
> > > > > >> have
> > > > > >> >> > both
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey,
> what
> > do
> > > > you
> > > > > >> >> think?
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep
> > 7,
> > > > 2020
> > > > > >> at
> > > > > >> >> 5:59
> > > > > >> >> > > AM
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > Alexey
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >> >> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank
> you,
> > I
> > > > got
> > > > > >> your
> > > > > >> >> > > concern
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > now.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > As
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > terminology,
> > > I
> > > > am
> > > > > >> >> > > absolutely
> > > > > >> >> > > > > fine
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the
> > approach
> > > > > best.
> > > > > >> >> > Dynamic
> > > > > >> >> > > or
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > evolving
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > corresponding
> > > > > >> changes
> > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > IEP
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > once
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > settle
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7
> сент.
> > > > 2020
> > > > > >> г. в
> > > > > >> >> > > 11:33,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > Ivan
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank
> you
> > > for
> > > > > >> your
> > > > > >> >> > > answer!
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My
> > > > > understanding
> > > > > >> is
> > > > > >> >> a
> > > > > >> >> > > > little
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > bit
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > different.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > definitely
> > > > > >> should be
> > > > > >> >> > > > > possible.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > But
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > see
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > main
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema
> is
> > > > > >> updated".
> > > > > >> >> I
> > > > > >> >> > > > treat a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > common
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> data
> > > > > >> >> manipulation
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > operations
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > clearly
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > interesting
> > > > > >> >> > capabilities,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > e.g.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > preventing
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> mistaken
> > > data
> > > > > >> >> > operations,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > restricting
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > Schema-first
> > > > > >> means
> > > > > >> >> > that
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > schema
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > exists
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > compliant
> > > > > with
> > > > > >> >> it -
> > > > > >> >> > > > that's
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A
> > > schema-last
> > > > > >> >> approach
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > mentioned
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > in
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists,
> > but
> > > > it
> > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > inferred
> > > > > >> >> > > > > from
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > data.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> proposing
> > > > > >> approach?
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I
> > would
> > > > > like
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> >> > say,
> > > > > >> >> > > > that
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > my
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > main
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > terminology.
> > > > > And
> > > > > >> I
> > > > > >> >> > > suppose
> > > > > >> >> > > > if
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > it
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > confuses
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> confused
> > as
> > > > > >> well. My
> > > > > >> >> > > > feeling
> > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > closer
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> evolving
> > > > > schema".
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >>
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > 2020-09-07
> > > > 0:47
> > > > > >> >> > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > >:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi
> > Ivan,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I
> don't
> > > see
> > > > > an
> > > > > >> >> issue
> > > > > >> >> > > with
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > that.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> advance
> > > and
> > > > > all
> > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > >> >> > > > stored
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > data
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > compliant
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is
> > > > proposed.
> > > > > >> There
> > > > > >> >> > are
> > > > > >> >> > > no
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > restrictions
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On
> Sat,
> > > Sep
> > > > > 5,
> > > > > >> >> 2020
> > > > > >> >> > at
> > > > > >> >> > > > 9:52
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > PM
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ivan
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > Alexey,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I
> am a
> > > > > little
> > > > > >> bit
> > > > > >> >> > > > confused
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > with
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a
> > > > survey
> > > > > >> [1]
> > > > > >> >> (see
> > > > > >> >> > > > part
> > > > > >> >> > > > > X
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Semi
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Structured
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> really
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a
> > > "dynamic
> > > > > >> >> schema"
> > > > > >> >> > > > > approach
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > as a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > kind
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >>
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > 2020-09-02
> > > > > >> 1:53
> > > > > >> >> > > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > However,
> > > > > >> could
> > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > >> >> > > > > please
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > ORM?
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> Is
> > > > there
> > > > > a
> > > > > >> use
> > > > > >> >> > case
> > > > > >> >> > > > for
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> (I
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > seen
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> one
> > > so
> > > > > >> far)?
> > > > > >> >> If
> > > > > >> >> > so,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > what
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > support
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > this?
> > > > In
> > > > > my
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> have.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> Am
> > I
> > > > > >> missing
> > > > > >> >> > > > something?
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> Good
> > > > > point,
> > > > > >> >> yes,
> > > > > >> >> > if
> > > > > >> >> > > > all
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > ORM
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > internally,
> > > > > >> >> then
> > > > > >> >> > > they
> > > > > >> >> > > > > can
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > easily
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > translate
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >> INSERT/UPDATE
> > > > > >> >> > > > statement
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > that
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > lists
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> our
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > Spring
> > > > > Data
> > > > > >> >> > > > integration
> > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > based
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> APIs
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > needs
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to
> > be
> > > > > >> improved
> > > > > >> >> > once
> > > > > >> >> > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > solve
> > > a
> > > > > ton
> > > > > >> of
> > > > > >> >> > > > usability
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > issues.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I
> > > would
> > > > > >> revise
> > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > phase.
> > > > > Can't
> > > > > >> >> say
> > > > > >> >> > if
> > > > > >> >> > > > it's
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > used
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > lot
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > getting
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> traction
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > sure.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > @Michael
> > > > > >> >> Pollind,
> > > > > >> >> > > I'll
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > loop
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > long
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > Ignite
> > > > > >> support
> > > > > >> >> for
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > Micornaut
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> >>
> > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> came
> > > > > across
> > > > > >> >> some
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > challenges.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Just
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > watch
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > That's
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > coming
> > > > in
> > > > > >> >> Ignite
> > > > > >> >> > > 3.0.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > Denis
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On
> > > Mon,
> > > > > Aug
> > > > > >> 31,
> > > > > >> >> > 2020
> > > > > >> >> > > > at
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > 5:11
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> Hi
> > > > Denis,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > Generally
> > > > > >> >> > > speaking, I
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > believe
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > addresses
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> >> > issue
> > > > > >> >> > > > if
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > duplicate
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > because
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > schema
> > > > > >> will be
> > > > > >> >> > > > created
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > for
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > cache,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > Basically,
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> >> > > schema
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > define
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > whether
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > not,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> and
> > > > which
> > > > > >> >> fields
> > > > > >> >> > > are
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > included
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> would
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > have
> > > > must
> > > > > >> be
> > > > > >> >> > > > compliant
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > with
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > this,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > with
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > data
> > > as
> > > > > >> with a
> > > > > >> >> > set
> > > > > >> >> > > of
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > records,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > However,
> > > > > >> could
> > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > >> >> > > > > please
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > ORM?
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> Is
> > > > there
> > > > > a
> > > > > >> use
> > > > > >> >> > case
> > > > > >> >> > > > for
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> (I
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > seen
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> one
> > > so
> > > > > >> far)?
> > > > > >> >> If
> > > > > >> >> > so,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > what
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > support
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > this?
> > > > In
> > > > > my
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> have.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> Am
> > I
> > > > > >> missing
> > > > > >> >> > > > something?
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > -Val
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> On
> > > Mon,
> > > > > Aug
> > > > > >> >> 31,
> > > > > >> >> > > 2020
> > > > > >> >> > > > at
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > 2:08
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > Val,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > I
> > > > would
> > > > > >> >> propose
> > > > > >> >> > > > > adding
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > another
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > point
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > list
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > related
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > >> >> > > ORM
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > frameworks
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > Micronaut
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > many
> > > > > >> others.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> Presently,
> > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > storage
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > engine
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requires
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > from
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > value
> > > > > >> ones
> > > > > >> >> that
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > complicate
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> frameworks
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> (especially
> > > > > >> >> if
> > > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > >> >> > > > key
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > object
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > comprises
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > More
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> be
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > found
> > > > > >> here:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > It
> > > > will
> > > > > >> be
> > > > > >> >> nice
> > > > > >> >> > > if
> > > > > >> >> > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > new
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > single
> > > > > >> >> entity
> > > > > >> >> > > > object
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > when
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > comes
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > split
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > entity
> > > > > >> into
> > > > > >> >> a
> > > > > >> >> > key
> > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > value.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Just
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > 3.0
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > has
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > all
> > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > essential
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > public
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > APIs
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > single-entity
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > based
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > approach.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > What
> > > > do
> > > > > >> you
> > > > > >> >> > > think?
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > -
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > Denis
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > On
> > > > Fri,
> > > > > >> Aug
> > > > > >> >> 28,
> > > > > >> >> > > > 2020
> > > > > >> >> > > > > at
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > 3:50
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > PM
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >
> > > > > >> Igniters,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >
> > > One
> > > > > of
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> >> > big
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > changes
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proposed
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >
> > > > > >> >> "schema-first
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > approach".
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > To
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >
> > > > > started
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >
> > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > IEP
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >
> > > for
> > > > > >> this
> > > > > >> >> > > change:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >
> > > > > Please
> > > > > >> >> take a
> > > > > >> >> > > > look
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > let
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >
> > > > > >> thoughts,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >
> > > > > >> >> suggestions,
> > > > > >> >> > or
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > objections.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >
> > > > -Val
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best
> > > > > regards,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan
> > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best
> > > regards,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan
> > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > --
> > > > > >> >> > > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > --
> > > > > >> >> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > >> >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>]

Pavel,
There are 2 PR's for the ticket[1] with two different APIs  suggested.
Please, take a look at PR [2].

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14035
[2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/69

On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:11 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>
wrote:

> Andrey, I can't find any async methods,
> can you please check if the changes are pushed?
>
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 10:06 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Pavel, good point.
> > Thanks. I've added async methods.
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 2:29 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Andrey,
> > >
> > > What about corresponding async APIs, do we add them now or later?
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 8:11 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Igniters.
> > > >
> > > > I've created a PR for Table access API [1].
> > > > This is an initial version. So, any suggestions\objections are
> > welcomed.
> > > > Please, do not hesitate to write your comments and\or examples to the
> > PR.
> > > >
> > > > Ignite-api module contains API classes, e.g. TableView classes as
> > > > projections for a table for different purposes.
> > > > Ignite-table contains dummy implementation and Example class
> explained
> > > how
> > > > it is supposed to be used.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Also, I'm still waiting for any feedback for Schema configuration
> > public
> > > > API PR [2].
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/33
> > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:05 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I've updated a PR regarding your feedback [1].
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:58 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Folks,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I updated the IEP to contain the missing pieces; actually, most of
> > the
> > > > >> questions here were covered by the text. Please let me know if
> there
> > > is
> > > > >> something still missing or unclear.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> чт, 31 дек. 2020 г. в 12:48, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > > > >> >:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Mikhail and Igniters,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Thanks for your comments. The questions are reasonable, though I
> > > think
> > > > >> all
> > > > >> > concerns are addressed by the IEP as Val mentioned. I will
> update
> > > the
> > > > >> > document according to your questions in the following week or
> so,
> > so
> > > > we
> > > > >> can
> > > > >> > have a constructive discussion further.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > ср, 30 дек. 2020 г. в 11:45, Michael Cherkasov <
> > > > >> > michael.cherkasov@gmail.com>:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> Hi Val, Andrey,
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> thank you for clarifying.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> I still have a few comments.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> 1. one table == one schema. KV vs SQL:
> > > > >> >> Looks like all agreed that KV is just a special case of a
> regular
> > > > table
> > > > >> >> with (blob,blob) schema.
> > > > >> >> I worry about the case when the user starts from KV case and
> > later
> > > > will
> > > > >> >> try
> > > > >> >> to expand it and try to leverage SQL for the existing KV table
> it
> > > > >> won't be
> > > > >> >> able to do so and will require to reload data. which isn't
> > > convenient
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> >> sometimes not even possible. Is it possible to extract a new
> > field
> > > > from
> > > > >> >> (blob, blob) schema and apply index on it?
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> 2. Could you please also list all ways of schema definition in
> > the
> > > > >> IEP? It
> > > > >> >> significant change and I bet the main point of this IEP,
> everyone
> > > > hates
> > > > >> >> QueryEntities, they are difficult to manage and in general,
> it's
> > > very
> > > > >> >> confusing to have a data model(schemas) and node/cluster
> > > > configuration
> > > > >> in
> > > > >> >> one place.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> So there will be SchemaBuilder and SQL to define schemas, but
> > > Andrey
> > > > >> also
> > > > >> >> mentioned annotations.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> I personally against configuration via annotations, while it's
> > > > >> convenient
> > > > >> >> for development, it difficult to manage because different
> classes
> > > can
> > > > >> be
> > > > >> >> deployed on different clients/servers nodes and it can lead to
> > > > >> >> unpredictable results.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> 3. IEP doesn't mention field type changes, only drop/add
> fields.
> > > > Field
> > > > >> >> type
> > > > >> >> changes are extremely painful right now(if even possible), so
> it
> > > > would
> > > > >> be
> > > > >> >> nice if some scenarios would be supported(like int8->int16, or
> > > > >> >> int8->String).
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> 4. got it, I thought IEP will have more details about the
> > > > >> implementation.
> > > > >> >> I've seen Andrey even sent benchmark results for a new
> > > serialization,
> > > > >> will
> > > > >> >> ping him about this.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> 5. Thanks for the clarification. I had a wrong understanding of
> > > > strick
> > > > >> >> mode.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> вт, 29 дек. 2020 г. в 19:32, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > >> >> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> > Hi Mike,
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > Thanks for providing your feedback. Please see my comments
> > below.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > I would also encourage you to go through the IEP-54 [1] - it
> > has
> > > a
> > > > >> lot
> > > > >> >> of
> > > > >> >> > detail on the topic.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > [1]
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > -Val
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:22 PM Michael Cherkasov <
> > > > >> >> > michael.cherkasov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > > Hi all,
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > I reviewed the mail thread and proposal page and I still
> > don't
> > > > >> fully
> > > > >> >> > > understand what is going to be changed, I would really
> > > appreciate
> > > > >> it
> > > > >> >> if
> > > > >> >> > you
> > > > >> >> > > will answer a few questions:
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > 1. Are you going to leave only one schema per cache? if so,
> > > will
> > > > be
> > > > >> >> there
> > > > >> >> > > an option to have a table with arbitrary objects(pure KV
> > case)?
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > My opinion is that KV case should be natively supported. I
> > think
> > > > this
> > > > >> >> still
> > > > >> >> > needs to be thought over, my current view on this is that we
> > > should
> > > > >> have
> > > > >> >> > separate APIs for KV and more generic storages. KV storage
> can
> > be
> > > > >> >> > implemented as a "table" with two BLOB fields where we will
> > store
> > > > >> >> > serialized key-value pairs. That would imply deserialization
> on
> > > > read,
> > > > >> >> but I
> > > > >> >> > believe this is OK for KV use cases. I'm happy to hear other
> > > ideas
> > > > >> >> though
> > > > >> >> > :)
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > > 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0 have to define
> schema?
> > > > >> >> > SchemaBuilder
> > > > >> >> > > and SQL only? Is there an option to put the schema
> definition
> > > to
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> >> > > configuration?(I really don't like this, I would prefer to
> > have
> > > > >> >> > > separate scripts to create schemas)
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > There will be no such thing as a static configuration in the
> > > first
> > > > >> >> place.
> > > > >> >> > Tables and schemas are created in runtime. Even if there is a
> > > file
> > > > >> >> provided
> > > > >> >> > on node startup, this file is only applied in the scope of
> the
> > > > >> 'start'
> > > > >> >> > operation. All configurations will be stored in a meta
> storage
> > > > >> >> available to
> > > > >> >> > all nodes, as opposed to individual files.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > > 3. Is there a way to change field type? if yes, can it be
> > done
> > > in
> > > > >> >> > runtime?
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > Absolutely! IEP-54 has a whole section about schema
> evolution.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > > 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going to be re-worked
> too,
> > is
> > > > >> there
> > > > >> >> any
> > > > >> >> > > IEP for this?
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > BinaryMarshaller as a tool for arbitrary object serialization
> > > will
> > > > be
> > > > >> >> gone,
> > > > >> >> > but we will reuse a lot of its concept to implement an
> internal
> > > > tuple
> > > > >> >> > serialization mechanism. IEP-54 has the description of the
> > > proposed
> > > > >> data
> > > > >> >> > format.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > > 5. I don't like automatic schema evaluation when a new
> field
> > is
> > > > >> added
> > > > >> >> > > automatically on record put, so is there a way to prohibit
> > this
> > > > >> >> behavior?
> > > > >> >> > >  I think all schema changes should be done only explicitly
> > > except
> > > > >> >> initial
> > > > >> >> > > schema creation.
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > The way I see it is that we should have two modes:
> schema-first
> > > and
> > > > >> >> > schema-last. Schema-first means exactly what you've
> described -
> > > > >> schemas
> > > > >> >> are
> > > > >> >> > defined and updated explicitly by the user. In the
> schema-last
> > > > mode,
> > > > >> >> > the user does not deal with schemas, as they are inferred
> from
> > > the
> > > > >> data
> > > > >> >> > inserted into tables. We should definitely not mix these
> modes
> > -
> > > it
> > > > >> has
> > > > >> >> to
> > > > >> >> > be one or another. And it probably makes sense to discuss
> which
> > > > mode
> > > > >> >> should
> > > > >> >> > be the default one.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > Thanks,
> > > > >> >> > > Mike.
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > >> >> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > >> >> > > >:
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > > Hi, Igniters.
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > We all know that the current QueryEntity API is not
> > > convenient
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> >> > needs
> > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > be reworked.
> > > > >> >> > > > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema configuration
> > public
> > > > API
> > > > >> >> for
> > > > >> >> > > > Ignite 3.0.
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > New schema configuration uses Builder pattern, which
> looks
> > > more
> > > > >> >> > > comfortable
> > > > >> >> > > > to use.
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package with the API
> > > itself,
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> >> a
> > > > >> >> > > draft
> > > > >> >> > > > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
> > > > >> >> > > > and a test that demonstrates how the API could be used.
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > Please note:
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with static
> factory
> > > > >> methods.
> > > > >> >> > > > * The implementation is decoupled and can be easily
> > extracted
> > > > to
> > > > >> >> > separate
> > > > >> >> > > > module if we decide to do so.
> > > > >> >> > > > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are missed, they
> will
> > > be
> > > > >> added
> > > > >> >> > > lately
> > > > >> >> > > > in separate tickes.
> > > > >> >> > > > * Index configuration extends marker interface that makes
> > > > >> possible
> > > > >> >> to
> > > > >> >> > > > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
> > > > >> >> > > > Hopfully, we could add a persistent geo-indices support
> in
> > > > >> future.
> > > > >> >> > > > * Supposedly, current table schema can be changed via
> > > > >> builder-like
> > > > >> >> > > > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See
> > > > >> >> 'TableModificationBuilder'
> > > > >> >> > > for
> > > > >> >> > > > details.
> > > > >> >> > > > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have 'toBuilder()'
> > > converter
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> >> that
> > > > >> >> > > > purpose as it is a Schema Manager responsibility to
> create
> > > > >> mutator
> > > > >> >> > > objects
> > > > >> >> > > > from the current schema,
> > > > >> >> > > > but implementing the Schema manager is out of scope and
> > will
> > > be
> > > > >> >> > designed
> > > > >> >> > > > within the next task.
> > > > >> >> > > > * Interfaces implementations are out of scope. I did not
> > > intend
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> >> > merge
> > > > >> >> > > > them right now, but for test/demostration purposes.
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > It is NOT the final version and some may be changed
> before
> > > the
> > > > >> first
> > > > >> >> > > > release of course.
> > > > >> >> > > > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed with this
> > > approach
> > > > or
> > > > >> >> some
> > > > >> >> > > > issues should be resolved at first.
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > Any thoughts or objections?
> > > > >> >> > > > Are interfaces good enough to be merged within the
> current
> > > > >> ticket?
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <
> > > > >> jury.gerzhedowich@gmail.com>
> > > > >> >> > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types:
> > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
> > > > >> >> > > > > 2. It requires adding new types to the internal
> > > > representation,
> > > > >> >> > > protocol,
> > > > >> >> > > > > e.t.c.
> > > > >> >> > > > > 3. internal representation should be the same as we
> keep
> > > sign
> > > > >> >> types.
> > > > >> >> > So
> > > > >> >> > > > it
> > > > >> >> > > > > will not requires more memory
> > > > >> >> > > > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such types for
> > > platforms
> > > > >> >> which
> > > > >> >> > not
> > > > >> >> > > > > support unsigned types. For example, a user could
> derive
> > -6
> > > > >> value
> > > > >> >> in
> > > > >> >> > > Java
> > > > >> >> > > > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits perspective will
> > be
> > > > >> >> right). I
> > > > >> >> > > > think
> > > > >> >> > > > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such cases,
> > especially
> > > it
> > > > >> >> will be
> > > > >> >> > > bad
> > > > >> >> > > > > for unsigned long when we require returns BigInteger
> > type.
> > > > >> >> > > > > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix for new
> types
> > > > like
> > > > >> a
> > > > >> >> > > '250u' -
> > > > >> >> > > > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
> > > > >> >> > > > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive comparison
> > logic
> > > > for
> > > > >> >> > indexes
> > > > >> >> > > > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for expressions. I
> > > think
> > > > it
> > > > >> >> not
> > > > >> >> > > > > possible for the current H2 engine and probably
> possible
> > > for
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> >> new
> > > > >> >> > > > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from anybody who
> > > involved
> > > > in
> > > > >> >> this
> > > > >> >> > > part
> > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > WDYT?
> > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > >> >> > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > > > >> >> > > > > >:
> > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0: once we
> > the
> > > > >> actual
> > > > >> >> > type
> > > > >> >> > > > > > information, we can make proper runtime adjustments
> and
> > > > >> >> conversions
> > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will be just a
> bit
> > > more
> > > > >> >> > > expensive.
> > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > >> >> ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > >> >> > >:
> > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
> > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons and so
> on
> > > are
> > > > >> >> broken
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned this
> > > > somewhere
> > > > >> >> > above.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document that SQL is
> not
> > > > >> >> supported
> > > > >> >> > on
> > > > >> >> > > > > those
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > types,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > end of story.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable request. I
> > > thought
> > > > >> about
> > > > >> >> > this
> > > > >> >> > > > > when
> > > > >> >> > > > > > I
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add these
> > > types
> > > > >> right
> > > > >> >> > > away.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the
> > beginning
> > > > with
> > > > >> >> .NET
> > > > >> >> > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > C++
> > > > >> >> > > > > > :)
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually works as
> > > expected,
> > > > it
> > > > >> >> needs
> > > > >> >> > > > some
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns are false):
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - It's true that equality check works
> properly,
> > > but
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> >> SQL
> > > > >> >> > > > range
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    queries it will break unless some special care
> > is
> > > > >> taken
> > > > >> >> on
> > > > >> >> > > Java
> > > > >> >> > > > > > side:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > for
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will be
> > > converted
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> >> -1,
> > > > >> >> > > > which
> > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we don't have
> > unsigned
> > > > >> types
> > > > >> >> > now,
> > > > >> >> > > I
> > > > >> >> > > > > > doubt
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > it
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    works.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - There is an obvious cross-platform data loss
> > > when
> > > > >> >> > > "intuitive"
> > > > >> >> > > > > type
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8 corresponds to
> > byte
> > > > >> type in
> > > > >> >> > > .NET,
> > > > >> >> > > > > but
> > > > >> >> > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have to use
> short
> > > > type
> > > > >> in
> > > > >> >> > Java,
> > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    will also need to take care of the range check
> > > > during
> > > > >> >> > > > > > serialization).
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > I
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    think we can even allow to try to deserialize
> a
> > > > value
> > > > >> >> into
> > > > >> >> > > > > arbitrary
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > type,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    but throw an exception if the range is out of
> > > > bounds.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once all the
> > > > details
> > > > >> >> are
> > > > >> >> > > > settled
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > here?
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't be
> > treated
> > > > >> >> correctly
> > > > >> >> > > for
> > > > >> >> > > > > now
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I think we could make "true" support for
> unsigned
> > > > >> types,
> > > > >> >> but
> > > > >> >> > > they
> > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map uint64 to
> > > Java
> > > > >> long
> > > > >> >> > > > > primitive,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > but
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > BigInteger only.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64 to Java
> > long,
> > > > but
> > > > >> >> treat
> > > > >> >> > > > > negative
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > values in a different way to preserve correct
> > > > ordering.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > These limitations will affect only mixed
> > > environments
> > > > >> when
> > > > >> >> > .Net
> > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > Java
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > used to access the data.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Will this solution address your issues?
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel Tupitsyn
> <
> > > > >> >> > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the
> > > beginning
> > > > >> with
> > > > >> >> > .NET
> > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > C++
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > :)
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as cache keys
> > and
> > > > >> >> values,
> > > > >> >> > as
> > > > >> >> > > > > fields
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > properties,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y
> clauses)
> > -
> > > it
> > > > >> >> works
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > transparently
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the users.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats those
> values
> > > as
> > > > >> >> > > > corresponding
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > signed
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in some cases
> > > only
> > > > >> >> because
> > > > >> >> > > > there
> > > > >> >> > > > > > are
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > no
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very simple
> change
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > protocol
> > > > >> >> > > > -
> > > > >> >> > > > > > add
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > type
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as signed
> > > > >> >> counterparts.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey
> > Mashenkov
> > > <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise
> > > > >> representation
> > > > >> >> is
> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > same)
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a uByte
> > > field
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> >> map
> > > > >> >> > it
> > > > >> >> > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > 'uint8'
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > column.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to "250" and
> put
> > > the
> > > > >> >> object
> > > > >> >> > > > into a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > table,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a single byte
> > > > 'int8'
> > > > >> >> > column.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it to
> > > directly
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> >> Java
> > > > >> >> > > > > object
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > field
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8 type to
> > > Java
> > > > >> >> 'short'
> > > > >> >> > > type
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > because the one expected to see "250" as a
> > > value
> > > > >> which
> > > > >> >> > > > doesn't
> > > > >> >> > > > > > fit
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > signed type.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a BigInteger
> > field
> > > in
> > > > >> >> Java.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat column value
> as
> > > Java
> > > > >> >> 'byte'
> > > > >> >> > as
> > > > >> >> > > > is,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > because
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a negative
> value,
> > so
> > > > it
> > > > >> >> should
> > > > >> >> > > be
> > > > >> >> > > > > cast
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > short
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger for
> > uint64)
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will require a
> > > different
> > > > >> >> > > comparator.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel
> > Tupitsyn
> > > <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a good
> > idea.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the simple
> > > > approach
> > > > >> I
> > > > >> >> > > > described?
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrey
> > > > Mashenkov
> > > > >> <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing range for
> > > > unsigned
> > > > >> >> types
> > > > >> >> > > > then
> > > > >> >> > > > > we
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > could
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > add a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on schema
> > > level
> > > > >> >> (like
> > > > >> >> > > > > > nullability
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > flag)
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types in
> > storage.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate storage
> > > > >> type-system
> > > > >> >> and
> > > > >> >> > > > binary
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > protocol
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of type will
> > > match
> > > > 1
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> >> 1
> > > > >> >> > > with
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > storage
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (native)
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either have a
> > > separate
> > > > >> type
> > > > >> >> id
> > > > >> >> > or
> > > > >> >> > > > > treat
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > serialized
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed or
> > > unsigned
> > > > >> >> flag).
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever foresee the
> > > > >> >> consequences
> > > > >> >> > of
> > > > >> >> > > > > using
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned types
> > > > perfectly
> > > > >> >> works
> > > > >> >> > > > with
> > > > >> >> > > > > > some
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > database,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite successor
> > > > confession
> > > > >> >> with
> > > > >> >> > our
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > "native"
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he can use the
> > > power
> > > > >> of
> > > > >> >> > Ignite
> > > > >> >> > > > > > Compute
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either fail to
> use
> > > his
> > > > >> >> > unsigned
> > > > >> >> > > > data
> > > > >> >> > > > > > on
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Java
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > due
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due to natural
> > Java
> > > > >> type
> > > > >> >> > system
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > limitations
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively supported types
> > > with
> > > > >> >> possible
> > > > >> >> > > > value
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > ranges
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is what trade-off
> > we
> > > > >> found
> > > > >> >> > > > > acceptable:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > narrowing
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use types of
> wider
> > > > >> range on
> > > > >> >> > > > systems
> > > > >> >> > > > > > like
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Java.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor
> > > Sapego <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so hard
> to
> > > > >> implement
> > > > >> >> > > > > comparison
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > of
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not seem
> > to
> > > > be a
> > > > >> >> big
> > > > >> >> > > issue
> > > > >> >> > > > > > from
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > my
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned types
> from
> > > > Java
> > > > >> - I
> > > > >> >> > > think,
> > > > >> >> > > > > if
> > > > >> >> > > > > > a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > user
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to interact
> > with
> > > > it
> > > > >> >> from
> > > > >> >> > > Java
> > > > >> >> > > > he
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > knows
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > he
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from
> platforms
> > > > where
> > > > >> >> they
> > > > >> >> > > have
> > > > >> >> > > > > > native
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > widely
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where
> users
> > > > >> currently
> > > > >> >> > have
> > > > >> >> > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > make a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > manual
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > casting
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using unsigned
> types
> > > when
> > > > >> they
> > > > >> >> > use
> > > > >> >> > > > > > Ignite.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM Pavel
> > > > >> Tupitsyn <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for those
> > types
> > > > >> >> > (basically,
> > > > >> >> > > > just
> > > > >> >> > > > > > add
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > more
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java
> > (bitwise
> > > > >> >> > > representation
> > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > same)
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned
> > > integers,
> > > > >> so
> > > > >> >> we
> > > > >> >> > can
> > > > >> >> > > > > > simply
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > say
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative comparison
> is
> > > not
> > > > >> >> > supported
> > > > >> >> > > > in
> > > > >> >> > > > > > SQL
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (equality
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM
> > Andrey
> > > > >> >> Mashenkov
> > > > >> >> > <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have i8 or
> > int8
> > > > >> >> instead of
> > > > >> >> > > > > > Integer.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't address
> the
> > > > issue.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types should be
> > > > portable
> > > > >> >> > across
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > different
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > systems
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type support.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is that
> > unsigned
> > > > >> types
> > > > >> >> > cover
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > different
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > ranges.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to
> introduce a
> > > > >> uLong.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big deal
> to
> > > add
> > > > >> uLong
> > > > >> >> > type
> > > > >> >> > > > > > support
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > at
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > storage
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and then
> > use
> > > it
> > > > >> in
> > > > >> >> e.g.
> > > > >> >> > > > .Net
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > only.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support it in
> e.g.
> > > > Java?
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range is
> > > about
> > > > >> >> (2^-63
> > > > >> >> > ..
> > > > >> >> > > > > 2^63)
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > range
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to
> restrict
> > > > range
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> >> (0
> > > > >> >> > ..
> > > > >> >> > > > > > 2^63).
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > This
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but
> > doesn't
> > > > look
> > > > >> >> like
> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > >> >> > > > > 'real'
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse when the
> > > user
> > > > >> will
> > > > >> >> use
> > > > >> >> > > > > uByte,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > as
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > limitation
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map
> > unsigned
> > > > >> types
> > > > >> >> to a
> > > > >> >> > > > type
> > > > >> >> > > > > of
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > wider
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative values.
> > > E.g.
> > > > >> >> uLong to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > BigInteger.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive Java
> > type
> > > > for
> > > > >> >> Long
> > > > >> >> > > here.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > However,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > still
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8
> bytes,
> > > but
> > > > >> >> have a
> > > > >> >> > > > > special
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > comparator
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid unwanted
> > > > >> >> > deserialization.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM
> > Pavel
> > > > >> >> Tupitsyn
> > > > >> >> > <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of "long,
> > > short,
> > > > >> >> byte"
> > > > >> >> > in
> > > > >> >> > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > protocol
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style, which is
> > > > concise
> > > > >> >> and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > unambiguous:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM
> > > Igor
> > > > >> >> Sapego <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support that. Also,
> > if
> > > we
> > > > >> are
> > > > >> >> > > aiming
> > > > >> >> > > > > for
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger
> platform-independance,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may want to
> > > > support
> > > > >> >> > > > > bit-notation
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (int32,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a different
> > type
> > > on
> > > > >> >> > different
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > platforms
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often when
> using
> > > ODBC
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> >> > > > example).
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34
> PM
> > > > Pavel
> > > > >> >> > > Tupitsyn
> > > > >> >> > > > <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should support
> > > > unsigned
> > > > >> >> data
> > > > >> >> > > > types:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have them,
> but
> > > many
> > > > >> >> other
> > > > >> >> > > > > languages
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > do,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing number
> > of
> > > > thin
> > > > >> >> > clients
> > > > >> >> > > > > this
> > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in current
> > > > Ignite.NET
> > > > >> >> > > > > implementation
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > we
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > store
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain
> when
> > it
> > > > >> comes
> > > > >> >> to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > metadata,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > binary
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to deserialize
> > int
> > > as
> > > > >> uint
> > > > >> >> > when
> > > > >> >> > > > you
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > have
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > class,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
> 12:28
> > > PM
> > > > >> >> Andrey
> > > > >> >> > > > > > Mashenkov <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both
> > serializers
> > > > use
> > > > >> >> > > reflection
> > > > >> >> > > > > > API.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will allow
> > users
> > > to
> > > > >> >> > configure
> > > > >> >> > > > > > static
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > along
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still
> need
> > to
> > > > >> >> validate
> > > > >> >> > > user
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > classes
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > client
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in the
> > grid
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> >> > > > reflection
> > > > >> >> > > > > > API
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few
> articles
> > > on
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> >> > > internet
> > > > >> >> > > > > on
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > how
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task for
> > > > supporting
> > > > >> >> > > GraalVM,
> > > > >> >> > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > maybe
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM
> will
> > > > >> suggest a
> > > > >> >> > > > solution
> > > > >> >> > > > > > or
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proper
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is
> found,
> > we
> > > > >> could
> > > > >> >> > allow
> > > > >> >> > > > > users
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > write
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > own
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I don't
> > think
> > > > it
> > > > >> is
> > > > >> >> a
> > > > >> >> > > good
> > > > >> >> > > > > idea
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > expose
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the public.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
> > 2:55
> > > AM
> > > > >> >> Denis
> > > > >> >> > > > Magda <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the
> > > > update,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the
> > serializers
> > > > >> take
> > > > >> >> into
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > consideration
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native-image-generation
> > > > >> feature of
> > > > >> >> > > > GraalVM?
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current binary
> > > > >> >> marshaller,
> > > > >> >> > we
> > > > >> >> > > > > can't
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > even
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > generate
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using our
> > thin
> > > > >> client
> > > > >> >> > > APIs.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at
> > > 4:39
> > > > AM
> > > > >> >> > Andrey
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to continue
> > > > >> discussion
> > > > >> >> of
> > > > >> >> > > > IEP-54
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who is
> > > > >> interested
> > > > >> >> > had a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > chance
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > get
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not
> hesitate
> > > to
> > > > >> ask
> > > > >> >> > > > questions
> > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > share
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a
> > prototype
> > > > of
> > > > >> >> > > serializer
> > > > >> >> > > > > [2]
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > for
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > data
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I
> compared
> > 2
> > > > >> >> approaches
> > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > (de)serialize
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java
> > > reflection/unsafe
> > > > >> API
> > > > >> >> and
> > > > >> >> > > > > similar
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > one
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second one
> > > > generates
> > > > >> >> > > serializer
> > > > >> >> > > > > for
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library for
> > > > >> compilation.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows
> better
> > > > >> results
> > > > >> >> in
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > benchmarks.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go
> with
> > it
> > > > as
> > > > >> >> > default
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > serializer
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation as a
> > > > fallback
> > > > >> if
> > > > >> >> > > someone
> > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of
> > > tasks
> > > > >> >> under
> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > umbrella
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ticket
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to
> > create
> > > > more
> > > > >> >> > tickets
> > > > >> >> > > > for
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > schema
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > manager
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation, but
> > would
> > > > >> like
> > > > >> >> to
> > > > >> >> > > > clarify
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > some
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > details.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought
> schemaManager
> > > on
> > > > >> each
> > > > >> >> > node
> > > > >> >> > > > > should
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > held:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping of
> > > > "schema
> > > > >> >> > > version"
> > > > >> >> > > > > <-->
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > validated
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide
> > schema
> > > > >> changes
> > > > >> >> > > > history.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client side.
> > > Before
> > > > >> any
> > > > >> >> > > > key-value
> > > > >> >> > > > > > API
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > operation
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a given
> > > > key-value
> > > > >> >> pair.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no
> > > > local-mapping
> > > > >> >> exists
> > > > >> >> > > > for a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > given
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema
> > has a
> > > > >> more
> > > > >> >> > recent
> > > > >> >> > > > > > version
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be validated
> > > against
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> >> > > latest
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > version
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object doesn't
> > fit
> > > to
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> >> > > latest
> > > > >> >> > > > > > schema
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > depends
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail the
> > > > >> operation
> > > > >> >> > > > ('strict'
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > mode)
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a new
> > schema
> > > > >> version
> > > > >> >> > > should
> > > > >> >> > > > > be
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > propagated
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server side we
> > > > usually
> > > > >> >> have
> > > > >> >> > no
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > key-value
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > classes
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change
> > history
> > > is
> > > > >> >> > available
> > > > >> >> > > > > and a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > tuple
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to
> > upgrade
> > > > any
> > > > >> >> > > received
> > > > >> >> > > > > > tuple
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > last
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow
> > nodes
> > > > to
> > > > >> >> send
> > > > >> >> > > > > key-value
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > pairs
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't receive a
> > > > schema
> > > > >> >> update
> > > > >> >> > > > yet)
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > without
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > reverting
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node with
> > newer
> > > > >> >> classes.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did
> you
> > > > mean
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> >> > > same?
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >>
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020
> at
> > > > 9:21
> > > > >> AM
> > > > >> >> > Ivan
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not
> ignore
> > > > >> history.
> > > > >> >> We
> > > > >> >> > > had
> > > > >> >> > > > a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > thread
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can
> resume
> > > it.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08
> > > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > >> >> Denis
> > > > >> >> > > > Magda
> > > > >> >> > > > > <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense,
> > > > thanks
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> >> > > > > > explaining.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we
> need
> > to
> > > > >> have a
> > > > >> >> > > > separate
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms
> > > > >> substitution.
> > > > >> >> > I'll
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > appreciate
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing pointers
> to
> > > any
> > > > >> >> > relevant
> > > > >> >> > > > IEPs
> > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > reasoning
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8,
> 2020
> > > at
> > > > >> 6:01
> > > > >> >> PM
> > > > >> >> > > > > Valentin
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > >> >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the
> > wording
> > > in
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> >> IEP
> > > > >> >> > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > little
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > bit
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you should
> > not
> > > > >> create
> > > > >> >> > > nested
> > > > >> >> > > > > > POJOs,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > but
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO that
> > is
> > > > >> mapped
> > > > >> >> to
> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > particular
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not
> > > > supported.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this
> > > correct?
> > > > >> >> Please
> > > > >> >> > > let
> > > > >> >> > > > me
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > know
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > if
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the
> "cache"
> > > > >> term, I
> > > > >> >> > agree
> > > > >> >> > > > > that
> > > > >> >> > > > > > it
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can
> > replace
> > > it
> > > > >> >> with.
> > > > >> >> > > > "Table"
> > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > tightly
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional
> in
> > > our
> > > > >> >> case.
> > > > >> >> > Do
> > > > >> >> > > > you
> > > > >> >> > > > > > want
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > create a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8,
> > 2020
> > > at
> > > > >> >> 4:37 PM
> > > > >> >> > > > Denis
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked
> the
> > > IEP
> > > > >> again
> > > > >> >> > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > have a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > few
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > questions.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary
> nested
> > > > >> objects
> > > > >> >> and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > collections
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs
> > > should
> > > > >> >> either
> > > > >> >> > be
> > > > >> >> > > > > > inlined
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > into
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you
> > provide a
> > > > DDL
> > > > >> >> code
> > > > >> >> > > > > snippet
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > showing
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to
> work?
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep
> > using
> > > > the
> > > > >> >> terms
> > > > >> >> > > > > "cache"
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right time
> to
> > > > >> discuss
> > > > >> >> an
> > > > >> >> > > > > > alternate
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > name
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the
> > > > "table"
> > > > >> >> > should
> > > > >> >> > > > stay
> > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > >> >> > primary
> > > > >> >> > > > APIs
> > > > >> >> > > > > > in
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7,
> > 2020
> > > > at
> > > > >> >> 12:26
> > > > >> >> > PM
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your
> > > point. I
> > > > >> >> agree
> > > > >> >> > > that
> > > > >> >> > > > > with
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > automatic
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last
> > > > >> territory.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if
> we
> > > > >> support
> > > > >> >> > > > automatic
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > evolution,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a
> > cache
> > > > >> without
> > > > >> >> > > schema
> > > > >> >> > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > inferring
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other words,
> we
> > > can
> > > > >> have
> > > > >> >> > both
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what
> do
> > > you
> > > > >> >> think?
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep
> 7,
> > > 2020
> > > > >> at
> > > > >> >> 5:59
> > > > >> >> > > AM
> > > > >> >> > > > > > Alexey
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> >> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you,
> I
> > > got
> > > > >> your
> > > > >> >> > > concern
> > > > >> >> > > > > > now.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > As
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> terminology,
> > I
> > > am
> > > > >> >> > > absolutely
> > > > >> >> > > > > fine
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the
> approach
> > > > best.
> > > > >> >> > Dynamic
> > > > >> >> > > or
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > evolving
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> corresponding
> > > > >> changes
> > > > >> >> to
> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > IEP
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > once
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > settle
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент.
> > > 2020
> > > > >> г. в
> > > > >> >> > > 11:33,
> > > > >> >> > > > > Ivan
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you
> > for
> > > > >> your
> > > > >> >> > > answer!
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My
> > > > understanding
> > > > >> is
> > > > >> >> a
> > > > >> >> > > > little
> > > > >> >> > > > > > bit
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > different.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> definitely
> > > > >> should be
> > > > >> >> > > > > possible.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > But
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > see
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > main
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is
> > > > >> updated".
> > > > >> >> I
> > > > >> >> > > > treat a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > common
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data
> > > > >> >> manipulation
> > > > >> >> > > > > > operations
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > are
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > clearly
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> interesting
> > > > >> >> > capabilities,
> > > > >> >> > > > > e.g.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > preventing
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken
> > data
> > > > >> >> > operations,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > restricting
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > Schema-first
> > > > >> means
> > > > >> >> > that
> > > > >> >> > > > > > schema
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > exists
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > compliant
> > > > with
> > > > >> >> it -
> > > > >> >> > > > that's
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A
> > schema-last
> > > > >> >> approach
> > > > >> >> > > > > > mentioned
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > in
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists,
> but
> > > it
> > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > inferred
> > > > >> >> > > > > from
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > data.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing
> > > > >> approach?
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I
> would
> > > > like
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> >> > say,
> > > > >> >> > > > that
> > > > >> >> > > > > > my
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > main
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > terminology.
> > > > And
> > > > >> I
> > > > >> >> > > suppose
> > > > >> >> > > > if
> > > > >> >> > > > > > it
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > confuses
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused
> as
> > > > >> well. My
> > > > >> >> > > > feeling
> > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > closer
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving
> > > > schema".
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> 2020-09-07
> > > 0:47
> > > > >> >> > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > > >> >> > > > > > >:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi
> Ivan,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't
> > see
> > > > an
> > > > >> >> issue
> > > > >> >> > > with
> > > > >> >> > > > > > that.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance
> > and
> > > > all
> > > > >> >> the
> > > > >> >> > > > stored
> > > > >> >> > > > > > data
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > compliant
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is
> > > proposed.
> > > > >> There
> > > > >> >> > are
> > > > >> >> > > no
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > restrictions
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat,
> > Sep
> > > > 5,
> > > > >> >> 2020
> > > > >> >> > at
> > > > >> >> > > > 9:52
> > > > >> >> > > > > > PM
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ivan
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> Alexey,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a
> > > > little
> > > > >> bit
> > > > >> >> > > > confused
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > with
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a
> > > survey
> > > > >> [1]
> > > > >> >> (see
> > > > >> >> > > > part
> > > > >> >> > > > > X
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > Semi
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Structured
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a
> > "dynamic
> > > > >> >> schema"
> > > > >> >> > > > > approach
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > as a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > kind
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > 2020-09-02
> > > > >> 1:53
> > > > >> >> > > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > However,
> > > > >> could
> > > > >> >> > you
> > > > >> >> > > > > please
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> ORM?
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is
> > > there
> > > > a
> > > > >> use
> > > > >> >> > case
> > > > >> >> > > > for
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> seen
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one
> > so
> > > > >> far)?
> > > > >> >> If
> > > > >> >> > so,
> > > > >> >> > > > > what
> > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> support
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> this?
> > > In
> > > > my
> > > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am
> I
> > > > >> missing
> > > > >> >> > > > something?
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good
> > > > point,
> > > > >> >> yes,
> > > > >> >> > if
> > > > >> >> > > > all
> > > > >> >> > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > ORM
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > internally,
> > > > >> >> then
> > > > >> >> > > they
> > > > >> >> > > > > can
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > easily
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > translate
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >> INSERT/UPDATE
> > > > >> >> > > > statement
> > > > >> >> > > > > > that
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > lists
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> Spring
> > > > Data
> > > > >> >> > > > integration
> > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > already
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > based
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> needs
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to
> be
> > > > >> improved
> > > > >> >> > once
> > > > >> >> > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> solve
> > a
> > > > ton
> > > > >> of
> > > > >> >> > > > usability
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > issues.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I
> > would
> > > > >> revise
> > > > >> >> the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> phase.
> > > > Can't
> > > > >> >> say
> > > > >> >> > if
> > > > >> >> > > > it's
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > used
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > lot
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > getting
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> sure.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > @Michael
> > > > >> >> Pollind,
> > > > >> >> > > I'll
> > > > >> >> > > > > > loop
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > you
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > long
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> Ignite
> > > > >> support
> > > > >> >> for
> > > > >> >> > > > > > Micornaut
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> >>
> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came
> > > > across
> > > > >> >> some
> > > > >> >> > > > > > challenges.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Just
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > watch
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> That's
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> coming
> > > in
> > > > >> >> Ignite
> > > > >> >> > > 3.0.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> Denis
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On
> > Mon,
> > > > Aug
> > > > >> 31,
> > > > >> >> > 2020
> > > > >> >> > > > at
> > > > >> >> > > > > > 5:11
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi
> > > Denis,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > Generally
> > > > >> >> > > speaking, I
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > believe
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > addresses
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> >> > issue
> > > > >> >> > > > if
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > duplicate
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> because
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > schema
> > > > >> will be
> > > > >> >> > > > created
> > > > >> >> > > > > > for
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > cache,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > Basically,
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> >> > > schema
> > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > define
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > whether
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> not,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > which
> > > > >> >> fields
> > > > >> >> > > are
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > included
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> have
> > > must
> > > > >> be
> > > > >> >> > > > compliant
> > > > >> >> > > > > > with
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > this,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> with
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> data
> > as
> > > > >> with a
> > > > >> >> > set
> > > > >> >> > > of
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > records,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > However,
> > > > >> could
> > > > >> >> > you
> > > > >> >> > > > > please
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> ORM?
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is
> > > there
> > > > a
> > > > >> use
> > > > >> >> > case
> > > > >> >> > > > for
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> seen
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one
> > so
> > > > >> far)?
> > > > >> >> If
> > > > >> >> > so,
> > > > >> >> > > > > what
> > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> support
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> this?
> > > In
> > > > my
> > > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am
> I
> > > > >> missing
> > > > >> >> > > > something?
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> -Val
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On
> > Mon,
> > > > Aug
> > > > >> >> 31,
> > > > >> >> > > 2020
> > > > >> >> > > > at
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > 2:08
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > Val,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I
> > > would
> > > > >> >> propose
> > > > >> >> > > > > adding
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > another
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > point
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > list
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > related
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> >> the
> > > > >> >> > > ORM
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > frameworks
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > Micronaut
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > many
> > > > >> others.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> Presently,
> > > > >> >> the
> > > > >> >> > > > > storage
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > engine
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requires
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > from
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > value
> > > > >> ones
> > > > >> >> that
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > complicate
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> frameworks
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> (especially
> > > > >> >> if
> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > >> >> > > > key
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > object
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > comprises
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > More
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > found
> > > > >> here:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> It
> > > will
> > > > >> be
> > > > >> >> nice
> > > > >> >> > > if
> > > > >> >> > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > new
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > single
> > > > >> >> entity
> > > > >> >> > > > object
> > > > >> >> > > > > > when
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > comes
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > split
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > entity
> > > > >> into
> > > > >> >> a
> > > > >> >> > key
> > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > value.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Just
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> 3.0
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> has
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> all
> > > the
> > > > >> >> > essential
> > > > >> >> > > > > > public
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > APIs
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> single-entity
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > based
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > approach.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > What
> > > do
> > > > >> you
> > > > >> >> > > think?
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > Denis
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> On
> > > Fri,
> > > > >> Aug
> > > > >> >> 28,
> > > > >> >> > > > 2020
> > > > >> >> > > > > at
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > 3:50
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > PM
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> Igniters,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > One
> > > > of
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> >> > big
> > > > >> >> > > > > > changes
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proposed
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> "schema-first
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > approach".
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > To
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > started
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> IEP
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > for
> > > > >> this
> > > > >> >> > > change:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > Please
> > > > >> >> take a
> > > > >> >> > > > look
> > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > let
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > me
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> thoughts,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> suggestions,
> > > > >> >> > or
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > objections.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > -Val
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best
> > > > regards,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan
> > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best
> > regards,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan
> > > Pavlukhin
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > --
> > > > >> >> > > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > --
> > > > >> >> > > > Best regards,
> > > > >> >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >
>


-- 
Best regards,
Andrey V. Mashenkov

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>]

Andrey, I can't find any async methods,
can you please check if the changes are pushed?

On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 10:06 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:

> Pavel, good point.
> Thanks. I've added async methods.
>
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 2:29 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Andrey,
> >
> > What about corresponding async APIs, do we add them now or later?
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 8:11 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Igniters.
> > >
> > > I've created a PR for Table access API [1].
> > > This is an initial version. So, any suggestions\objections are
> welcomed.
> > > Please, do not hesitate to write your comments and\or examples to the
> PR.
> > >
> > > Ignite-api module contains API classes, e.g. TableView classes as
> > > projections for a table for different purposes.
> > > Ignite-table contains dummy implementation and Example class explained
> > how
> > > it is supposed to be used.
> > >
> > >
> > > Also, I'm still waiting for any feedback for Schema configuration
> public
> > > API PR [2].
> > >
> > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/33
> > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:05 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I've updated a PR regarding your feedback [1].
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:58 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Folks,
> > > >>
> > > >> I updated the IEP to contain the missing pieces; actually, most of
> the
> > > >> questions here were covered by the text. Please let me know if there
> > is
> > > >> something still missing or unclear.
> > > >>
> > > >> чт, 31 дек. 2020 г. в 12:48, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > > >> >:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Mikhail and Igniters,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thanks for your comments. The questions are reasonable, though I
> > think
> > > >> all
> > > >> > concerns are addressed by the IEP as Val mentioned. I will update
> > the
> > > >> > document according to your questions in the following week or so,
> so
> > > we
> > > >> can
> > > >> > have a constructive discussion further.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > ср, 30 дек. 2020 г. в 11:45, Michael Cherkasov <
> > > >> > michael.cherkasov@gmail.com>:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> Hi Val, Andrey,
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> thank you for clarifying.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> I still have a few comments.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> 1. one table == one schema. KV vs SQL:
> > > >> >> Looks like all agreed that KV is just a special case of a regular
> > > table
> > > >> >> with (blob,blob) schema.
> > > >> >> I worry about the case when the user starts from KV case and
> later
> > > will
> > > >> >> try
> > > >> >> to expand it and try to leverage SQL for the existing KV table it
> > > >> won't be
> > > >> >> able to do so and will require to reload data. which isn't
> > convenient
> > > >> and
> > > >> >> sometimes not even possible. Is it possible to extract a new
> field
> > > from
> > > >> >> (blob, blob) schema and apply index on it?
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> 2. Could you please also list all ways of schema definition in
> the
> > > >> IEP? It
> > > >> >> significant change and I bet the main point of this IEP, everyone
> > > hates
> > > >> >> QueryEntities, they are difficult to manage and in general, it's
> > very
> > > >> >> confusing to have a data model(schemas) and node/cluster
> > > configuration
> > > >> in
> > > >> >> one place.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> So there will be SchemaBuilder and SQL to define schemas, but
> > Andrey
> > > >> also
> > > >> >> mentioned annotations.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> I personally against configuration via annotations, while it's
> > > >> convenient
> > > >> >> for development, it difficult to manage because different classes
> > can
> > > >> be
> > > >> >> deployed on different clients/servers nodes and it can lead to
> > > >> >> unpredictable results.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> 3. IEP doesn't mention field type changes, only drop/add fields.
> > > Field
> > > >> >> type
> > > >> >> changes are extremely painful right now(if even possible), so it
> > > would
> > > >> be
> > > >> >> nice if some scenarios would be supported(like int8->int16, or
> > > >> >> int8->String).
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> 4. got it, I thought IEP will have more details about the
> > > >> implementation.
> > > >> >> I've seen Andrey even sent benchmark results for a new
> > serialization,
> > > >> will
> > > >> >> ping him about this.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> 5. Thanks for the clarification. I had a wrong understanding of
> > > strick
> > > >> >> mode.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> вт, 29 дек. 2020 г. в 19:32, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > >> >> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > Hi Mike,
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > Thanks for providing your feedback. Please see my comments
> below.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > I would also encourage you to go through the IEP-54 [1] - it
> has
> > a
> > > >> lot
> > > >> >> of
> > > >> >> > detail on the topic.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > [1]
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > -Val
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:22 PM Michael Cherkasov <
> > > >> >> > michael.cherkasov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > > Hi all,
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > I reviewed the mail thread and proposal page and I still
> don't
> > > >> fully
> > > >> >> > > understand what is going to be changed, I would really
> > appreciate
> > > >> it
> > > >> >> if
> > > >> >> > you
> > > >> >> > > will answer a few questions:
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > 1. Are you going to leave only one schema per cache? if so,
> > will
> > > be
> > > >> >> there
> > > >> >> > > an option to have a table with arbitrary objects(pure KV
> case)?
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > My opinion is that KV case should be natively supported. I
> think
> > > this
> > > >> >> still
> > > >> >> > needs to be thought over, my current view on this is that we
> > should
> > > >> have
> > > >> >> > separate APIs for KV and more generic storages. KV storage can
> be
> > > >> >> > implemented as a "table" with two BLOB fields where we will
> store
> > > >> >> > serialized key-value pairs. That would imply deserialization on
> > > read,
> > > >> >> but I
> > > >> >> > believe this is OK for KV use cases. I'm happy to hear other
> > ideas
> > > >> >> though
> > > >> >> > :)
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > > 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0 have to define schema?
> > > >> >> > SchemaBuilder
> > > >> >> > > and SQL only? Is there an option to put the schema definition
> > to
> > > >> the
> > > >> >> > > configuration?(I really don't like this, I would prefer to
> have
> > > >> >> > > separate scripts to create schemas)
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > There will be no such thing as a static configuration in the
> > first
> > > >> >> place.
> > > >> >> > Tables and schemas are created in runtime. Even if there is a
> > file
> > > >> >> provided
> > > >> >> > on node startup, this file is only applied in the scope of the
> > > >> 'start'
> > > >> >> > operation. All configurations will be stored in a meta storage
> > > >> >> available to
> > > >> >> > all nodes, as opposed to individual files.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > > 3. Is there a way to change field type? if yes, can it be
> done
> > in
> > > >> >> > runtime?
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > Absolutely! IEP-54 has a whole section about schema evolution.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > > 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going to be re-worked too,
> is
> > > >> there
> > > >> >> any
> > > >> >> > > IEP for this?
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > BinaryMarshaller as a tool for arbitrary object serialization
> > will
> > > be
> > > >> >> gone,
> > > >> >> > but we will reuse a lot of its concept to implement an internal
> > > tuple
> > > >> >> > serialization mechanism. IEP-54 has the description of the
> > proposed
> > > >> data
> > > >> >> > format.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > > 5. I don't like automatic schema evaluation when a new field
> is
> > > >> added
> > > >> >> > > automatically on record put, so is there a way to prohibit
> this
> > > >> >> behavior?
> > > >> >> > >  I think all schema changes should be done only explicitly
> > except
> > > >> >> initial
> > > >> >> > > schema creation.
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > The way I see it is that we should have two modes: schema-first
> > and
> > > >> >> > schema-last. Schema-first means exactly what you've described -
> > > >> schemas
> > > >> >> are
> > > >> >> > defined and updated explicitly by the user. In the schema-last
> > > mode,
> > > >> >> > the user does not deal with schemas, as they are inferred from
> > the
> > > >> data
> > > >> >> > inserted into tables. We should definitely not mix these modes
> -
> > it
> > > >> has
> > > >> >> to
> > > >> >> > be one or another. And it probably makes sense to discuss which
> > > mode
> > > >> >> should
> > > >> >> > be the default one.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > Thanks,
> > > >> >> > > Mike.
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > >> >> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > >> >> > > >:
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > > Hi, Igniters.
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > We all know that the current QueryEntity API is not
> > convenient
> > > >> and
> > > >> >> > needs
> > > >> >> > > to
> > > >> >> > > > be reworked.
> > > >> >> > > > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema configuration
> public
> > > API
> > > >> >> for
> > > >> >> > > > Ignite 3.0.
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > New schema configuration uses Builder pattern, which looks
> > more
> > > >> >> > > comfortable
> > > >> >> > > > to use.
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package with the API
> > itself,
> > > >> and
> > > >> >> a
> > > >> >> > > draft
> > > >> >> > > > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
> > > >> >> > > > and a test that demonstrates how the API could be used.
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > Please note:
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with static factory
> > > >> methods.
> > > >> >> > > > * The implementation is decoupled and can be easily
> extracted
> > > to
> > > >> >> > separate
> > > >> >> > > > module if we decide to do so.
> > > >> >> > > > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are missed, they will
> > be
> > > >> added
> > > >> >> > > lately
> > > >> >> > > > in separate tickes.
> > > >> >> > > > * Index configuration extends marker interface that makes
> > > >> possible
> > > >> >> to
> > > >> >> > > > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
> > > >> >> > > > Hopfully, we could add a persistent geo-indices support in
> > > >> future.
> > > >> >> > > > * Supposedly, current table schema can be changed via
> > > >> builder-like
> > > >> >> > > > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See
> > > >> >> 'TableModificationBuilder'
> > > >> >> > > for
> > > >> >> > > > details.
> > > >> >> > > > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have 'toBuilder()'
> > converter
> > > >> for
> > > >> >> that
> > > >> >> > > > purpose as it is a Schema Manager responsibility to create
> > > >> mutator
> > > >> >> > > objects
> > > >> >> > > > from the current schema,
> > > >> >> > > > but implementing the Schema manager is out of scope and
> will
> > be
> > > >> >> > designed
> > > >> >> > > > within the next task.
> > > >> >> > > > * Interfaces implementations are out of scope. I did not
> > intend
> > > >> to
> > > >> >> > merge
> > > >> >> > > > them right now, but for test/demostration purposes.
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > It is NOT the final version and some may be changed before
> > the
> > > >> first
> > > >> >> > > > release of course.
> > > >> >> > > > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed with this
> > approach
> > > or
> > > >> >> some
> > > >> >> > > > issues should be resolved at first.
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > Any thoughts or objections?
> > > >> >> > > > Are interfaces good enough to be merged within the current
> > > >> ticket?
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <
> > > >> jury.gerzhedowich@gmail.com>
> > > >> >> > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types:
> > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
> > > >> >> > > > > 2. It requires adding new types to the internal
> > > representation,
> > > >> >> > > protocol,
> > > >> >> > > > > e.t.c.
> > > >> >> > > > > 3. internal representation should be the same as we keep
> > sign
> > > >> >> types.
> > > >> >> > So
> > > >> >> > > > it
> > > >> >> > > > > will not requires more memory
> > > >> >> > > > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such types for
> > platforms
> > > >> >> which
> > > >> >> > not
> > > >> >> > > > > support unsigned types. For example, a user could derive
> -6
> > > >> value
> > > >> >> in
> > > >> >> > > Java
> > > >> >> > > > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits perspective will
> be
> > > >> >> right). I
> > > >> >> > > > think
> > > >> >> > > > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such cases,
> especially
> > it
> > > >> >> will be
> > > >> >> > > bad
> > > >> >> > > > > for unsigned long when we require returns BigInteger
> type.
> > > >> >> > > > > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix for new types
> > > like
> > > >> a
> > > >> >> > > '250u' -
> > > >> >> > > > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
> > > >> >> > > > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive comparison
> logic
> > > for
> > > >> >> > indexes
> > > >> >> > > > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for expressions. I
> > think
> > > it
> > > >> >> not
> > > >> >> > > > > possible for the current H2 engine and probably possible
> > for
> > > >> the
> > > >> >> new
> > > >> >> > > > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from anybody who
> > involved
> > > in
> > > >> >> this
> > > >> >> > > part
> > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > WDYT?
> > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > >> >> > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > > >> >> > > > > >:
> > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0: once we
> the
> > > >> actual
> > > >> >> > type
> > > >> >> > > > > > information, we can make proper runtime adjustments and
> > > >> >> conversions
> > > >> >> > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will be just a bit
> > more
> > > >> >> > > expensive.
> > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > >> >> ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > >> >> > >:
> > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
> > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons and so on
> > are
> > > >> >> broken
> > > >> >> > > > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned this
> > > somewhere
> > > >> >> > above.
> > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document that SQL is not
> > > >> >> supported
> > > >> >> > on
> > > >> >> > > > > those
> > > >> >> > > > > > > types,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > end of story.
> > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable request. I
> > thought
> > > >> about
> > > >> >> > this
> > > >> >> > > > > when
> > > >> >> > > > > > I
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add these
> > types
> > > >> right
> > > >> >> > > away.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the
> beginning
> > > with
> > > >> >> .NET
> > > >> >> > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > C++
> > > >> >> > > > > > :)
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually works as
> > expected,
> > > it
> > > >> >> needs
> > > >> >> > > > some
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns are false):
> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - It's true that equality check works properly,
> > but
> > > >> for
> > > >> >> SQL
> > > >> >> > > > range
> > > >> >> > > > > > > >    queries it will break unless some special care
> is
> > > >> taken
> > > >> >> on
> > > >> >> > > Java
> > > >> >> > > > > > side:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > for
> > > >> >> > > > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will be
> > converted
> > > >> to
> > > >> >> -1,
> > > >> >> > > > which
> > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > >> >> > > > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we don't have
> unsigned
> > > >> types
> > > >> >> > now,
> > > >> >> > > I
> > > >> >> > > > > > doubt
> > > >> >> > > > > > > it
> > > >> >> > > > > > > >    works.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - There is an obvious cross-platform data loss
> > when
> > > >> >> > > "intuitive"
> > > >> >> > > > > type
> > > >> >> > > > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8 corresponds to
> byte
> > > >> type in
> > > >> >> > > .NET,
> > > >> >> > > > > but
> > > >> >> > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have to use short
> > > type
> > > >> in
> > > >> >> > Java,
> > > >> >> > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> >> > > > > > > >    will also need to take care of the range check
> > > during
> > > >> >> > > > > > serialization).
> > > >> >> > > > > > > I
> > > >> >> > > > > > > >    think we can even allow to try to deserialize a
> > > value
> > > >> >> into
> > > >> >> > > > > arbitrary
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > type,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > >    but throw an exception if the range is out of
> > > bounds.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once all the
> > > details
> > > >> >> are
> > > >> >> > > > settled
> > > >> >> > > > > > > here?
> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't be
> treated
> > > >> >> correctly
> > > >> >> > > for
> > > >> >> > > > > now
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I think we could make "true" support for unsigned
> > > >> types,
> > > >> >> but
> > > >> >> > > they
> > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map uint64 to
> > Java
> > > >> long
> > > >> >> > > > > primitive,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > but
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > BigInteger only.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64 to Java
> long,
> > > but
> > > >> >> treat
> > > >> >> > > > > negative
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > values in a different way to preserve correct
> > > ordering.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > These limitations will affect only mixed
> > environments
> > > >> when
> > > >> >> > .Net
> > > >> >> > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > Java
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > used to access the data.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Will this solution address your issues?
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > >> >> > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the
> > beginning
> > > >> with
> > > >> >> > .NET
> > > >> >> > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > C++
> > > >> >> > > > > > > :)
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as cache keys
> and
> > > >> >> values,
> > > >> >> > as
> > > >> >> > > > > fields
> > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > properties,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y clauses)
> -
> > it
> > > >> >> works
> > > >> >> > > > > > > transparently
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > for
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the users.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats those values
> > as
> > > >> >> > > > corresponding
> > > >> >> > > > > > > signed
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in some cases
> > only
> > > >> >> because
> > > >> >> > > > there
> > > >> >> > > > > > are
> > > >> >> > > > > > > no
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very simple change
> to
> > > the
> > > >> >> > > protocol
> > > >> >> > > > -
> > > >> >> > > > > > add
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > type
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as signed
> > > >> >> counterparts.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey
> Mashenkov
> > <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise
> > > >> representation
> > > >> >> is
> > > >> >> > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > same)
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a uByte
> > field
> > > >> and
> > > >> >> map
> > > >> >> > it
> > > >> >> > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > 'uint8'
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > column.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to "250" and put
> > the
> > > >> >> object
> > > >> >> > > > into a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > table,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a single byte
> > > 'int8'
> > > >> >> > column.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it to
> > directly
> > > >> the
> > > >> >> Java
> > > >> >> > > > > object
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > field
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > of
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8 type to
> > Java
> > > >> >> 'short'
> > > >> >> > > type
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > because the one expected to see "250" as a
> > value
> > > >> which
> > > >> >> > > > doesn't
> > > >> >> > > > > > fit
> > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > signed type.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a BigInteger
> field
> > in
> > > >> >> Java.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat column value as
> > Java
> > > >> >> 'byte'
> > > >> >> > as
> > > >> >> > > > is,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > because
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a negative value,
> so
> > > it
> > > >> >> should
> > > >> >> > > be
> > > >> >> > > > > cast
> > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > short
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger for
> uint64)
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will require a
> > different
> > > >> >> > > comparator.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel
> Tupitsyn
> > <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a good
> idea.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the simple
> > > approach
> > > >> I
> > > >> >> > > > described?
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrey
> > > Mashenkov
> > > >> <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing range for
> > > unsigned
> > > >> >> types
> > > >> >> > > > then
> > > >> >> > > > > we
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > could
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > add a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on schema
> > level
> > > >> >> (like
> > > >> >> > > > > > nullability
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > flag)
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types in
> storage.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate storage
> > > >> type-system
> > > >> >> and
> > > >> >> > > > binary
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > protocol
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of type will
> > match
> > > 1
> > > >> to
> > > >> >> 1
> > > >> >> > > with
> > > >> >> > > > > > > storage
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (native)
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either have a
> > separate
> > > >> type
> > > >> >> id
> > > >> >> > or
> > > >> >> > > > > treat
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > serialized
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed or
> > unsigned
> > > >> >> flag).
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever foresee the
> > > >> >> consequences
> > > >> >> > of
> > > >> >> > > > > using
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned types
> > > perfectly
> > > >> >> works
> > > >> >> > > > with
> > > >> >> > > > > > some
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > database,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite successor
> > > confession
> > > >> >> with
> > > >> >> > our
> > > >> >> > > > > > > "native"
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he can use the
> > power
> > > >> of
> > > >> >> > Ignite
> > > >> >> > > > > > Compute
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > on
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either fail to use
> > his
> > > >> >> > unsigned
> > > >> >> > > > data
> > > >> >> > > > > > on
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > Java
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > due
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due to natural
> Java
> > > >> type
> > > >> >> > system
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > limitations
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively supported types
> > with
> > > >> >> possible
> > > >> >> > > > value
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > ranges
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is what trade-off
> we
> > > >> found
> > > >> >> > > > > acceptable:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > narrowing
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use types of wider
> > > >> range on
> > > >> >> > > > systems
> > > >> >> > > > > > like
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Java.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor
> > Sapego <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so hard to
> > > >> implement
> > > >> >> > > > > comparison
> > > >> >> > > > > > > of
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not seem
> to
> > > be a
> > > >> >> big
> > > >> >> > > issue
> > > >> >> > > > > > from
> > > >> >> > > > > > > my
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned types from
> > > Java
> > > >> - I
> > > >> >> > > think,
> > > >> >> > > > > if
> > > >> >> > > > > > a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > user
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to interact
> with
> > > it
> > > >> >> from
> > > >> >> > > Java
> > > >> >> > > > he
> > > >> >> > > > > > > knows
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > what
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > he
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from platforms
> > > where
> > > >> >> they
> > > >> >> > > have
> > > >> >> > > > > > native
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > support
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > widely
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where users
> > > >> currently
> > > >> >> > have
> > > >> >> > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > make a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > manual
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > casting
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using unsigned types
> > when
> > > >> they
> > > >> >> > use
> > > >> >> > > > > > Ignite.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM Pavel
> > > >> Tupitsyn <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for those
> types
> > > >> >> > (basically,
> > > >> >> > > > just
> > > >> >> > > > > > add
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > more
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java
> (bitwise
> > > >> >> > > representation
> > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > same)
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned
> > integers,
> > > >> so
> > > >> >> we
> > > >> >> > can
> > > >> >> > > > > > simply
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > say
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative comparison is
> > not
> > > >> >> > supported
> > > >> >> > > > in
> > > >> >> > > > > > SQL
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (equality
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM
> Andrey
> > > >> >> Mashenkov
> > > >> >> > <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have i8 or
> int8
> > > >> >> instead of
> > > >> >> > > > > > Integer.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't address the
> > > issue.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types should be
> > > portable
> > > >> >> > across
> > > >> >> > > > > > > different
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > systems
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type support.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is that
> unsigned
> > > >> types
> > > >> >> > cover
> > > >> >> > > > > > > different
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > ranges.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to introduce a
> > > >> uLong.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big deal to
> > add
> > > >> uLong
> > > >> >> > type
> > > >> >> > > > > > support
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > at
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > storage
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and then
> use
> > it
> > > >> in
> > > >> >> e.g.
> > > >> >> > > > .Net
> > > >> >> > > > > > > only.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support it in e.g.
> > > Java?
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range is
> > about
> > > >> >> (2^-63
> > > >> >> > ..
> > > >> >> > > > > 2^63)
> > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > range
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to restrict
> > > range
> > > >> to
> > > >> >> (0
> > > >> >> > ..
> > > >> >> > > > > > 2^63).
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > This
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but
> doesn't
> > > look
> > > >> >> like
> > > >> >> > a
> > > >> >> > > > > 'real'
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse when the
> > user
> > > >> will
> > > >> >> use
> > > >> >> > > > > uByte,
> > > >> >> > > > > > as
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > limitation
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map
> unsigned
> > > >> types
> > > >> >> to a
> > > >> >> > > > type
> > > >> >> > > > > of
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > wider
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative values.
> > E.g.
> > > >> >> uLong to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > BigInteger.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive Java
> type
> > > for
> > > >> >> Long
> > > >> >> > > here.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > However,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > still
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8 bytes,
> > but
> > > >> >> have a
> > > >> >> > > > > special
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > comparator
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid unwanted
> > > >> >> > deserialization.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM
> Pavel
> > > >> >> Tupitsyn
> > > >> >> > <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of "long,
> > short,
> > > >> >> byte"
> > > >> >> > in
> > > >> >> > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > protocol
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style, which is
> > > concise
> > > >> >> and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > unambiguous:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM
> > Igor
> > > >> >> Sapego <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support that. Also,
> if
> > we
> > > >> are
> > > >> >> > > aiming
> > > >> >> > > > > for
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger platform-independance,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may want to
> > > support
> > > >> >> > > > > bit-notation
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (int32,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a different
> type
> > on
> > > >> >> > different
> > > >> >> > > > > > > platforms
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often when using
> > ODBC
> > > >> for
> > > >> >> > > > example).
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM
> > > Pavel
> > > >> >> > > Tupitsyn
> > > >> >> > > > <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should support
> > > unsigned
> > > >> >> data
> > > >> >> > > > types:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have them, but
> > many
> > > >> >> other
> > > >> >> > > > > languages
> > > >> >> > > > > > > do,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing number
> of
> > > thin
> > > >> >> > clients
> > > >> >> > > > > this
> > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in current
> > > Ignite.NET
> > > >> >> > > > > implementation
> > > >> >> > > > > > > we
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > store
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain when
> it
> > > >> comes
> > > >> >> to
> > > >> >> > > > > > metadata,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > binary
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to deserialize
> int
> > as
> > > >> uint
> > > >> >> > when
> > > >> >> > > > you
> > > >> >> > > > > > > have
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > class,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28
> > PM
> > > >> >> Andrey
> > > >> >> > > > > > Mashenkov <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both
> serializers
> > > use
> > > >> >> > > reflection
> > > >> >> > > > > > API.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will allow
> users
> > to
> > > >> >> > configure
> > > >> >> > > > > > static
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > schema
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > along
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still need
> to
> > > >> >> validate
> > > >> >> > > user
> > > >> >> > > > > > > classes
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > on
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > client
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in the
> grid
> > > >> and
> > > >> >> > > > reflection
> > > >> >> > > > > > API
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few articles
> > on
> > > >> the
> > > >> >> > > internet
> > > >> >> > > > > on
> > > >> >> > > > > > > how
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task for
> > > supporting
> > > >> >> > > GraalVM,
> > > >> >> > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > maybe
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM will
> > > >> suggest a
> > > >> >> > > > solution
> > > >> >> > > > > > or
> > > >> >> > > > > > > a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proper
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is found,
> we
> > > >> could
> > > >> >> > allow
> > > >> >> > > > > users
> > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > write
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > own
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I don't
> think
> > > it
> > > >> is
> > > >> >> a
> > > >> >> > > good
> > > >> >> > > > > idea
> > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > expose
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the public.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
> 2:55
> > AM
> > > >> >> Denis
> > > >> >> > > > Magda <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the
> > > update,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the
> serializers
> > > >> take
> > > >> >> into
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > consideration
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native-image-generation
> > > >> feature of
> > > >> >> > > > GraalVM?
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current binary
> > > >> >> marshaller,
> > > >> >> > we
> > > >> >> > > > > can't
> > > >> >> > > > > > > even
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > generate
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using our
> thin
> > > >> client
> > > >> >> > > APIs.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at
> > 4:39
> > > AM
> > > >> >> > Andrey
> > > >> >> > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to continue
> > > >> discussion
> > > >> >> of
> > > >> >> > > > IEP-54
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who is
> > > >> interested
> > > >> >> > had a
> > > >> >> > > > > > chance
> > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > get
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not hesitate
> > to
> > > >> ask
> > > >> >> > > > questions
> > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > share
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a
> prototype
> > > of
> > > >> >> > > serializer
> > > >> >> > > > > [2]
> > > >> >> > > > > > > for
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > data
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I compared
> 2
> > > >> >> approaches
> > > >> >> > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > (de)serialize
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java
> > reflection/unsafe
> > > >> API
> > > >> >> and
> > > >> >> > > > > similar
> > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > one
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second one
> > > generates
> > > >> >> > > serializer
> > > >> >> > > > > for
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > particular
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library for
> > > >> compilation.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows better
> > > >> results
> > > >> >> in
> > > >> >> > > > > > > benchmarks.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go with
> it
> > > as
> > > >> >> > default
> > > >> >> > > > > > > serializer
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation as a
> > > fallback
> > > >> if
> > > >> >> > > someone
> > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > issues
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of
> > tasks
> > > >> >> under
> > > >> >> > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > umbrella
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ticket
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to
> create
> > > more
> > > >> >> > tickets
> > > >> >> > > > for
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > schema
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > manager
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation, but
> would
> > > >> like
> > > >> >> to
> > > >> >> > > > clarify
> > > >> >> > > > > > > some
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > details.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought schemaManager
> > on
> > > >> each
> > > >> >> > node
> > > >> >> > > > > should
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > held:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping of
> > > "schema
> > > >> >> > > version"
> > > >> >> > > > > <-->
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > validated
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide
> schema
> > > >> changes
> > > >> >> > > > history.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client side.
> > Before
> > > >> any
> > > >> >> > > > key-value
> > > >> >> > > > > > API
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > operation
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a given
> > > key-value
> > > >> >> pair.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no
> > > local-mapping
> > > >> >> exists
> > > >> >> > > > for a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > given
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema
> has a
> > > >> more
> > > >> >> > recent
> > > >> >> > > > > > version
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be validated
> > against
> > > >> the
> > > >> >> > > latest
> > > >> >> > > > > > > version
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object doesn't
> fit
> > to
> > > >> the
> > > >> >> > > latest
> > > >> >> > > > > > schema
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > depends
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail the
> > > >> operation
> > > >> >> > > > ('strict'
> > > >> >> > > > > > > mode)
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > or
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a new
> schema
> > > >> version
> > > >> >> > > should
> > > >> >> > > > > be
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > propagated
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server side we
> > > usually
> > > >> >> have
> > > >> >> > no
> > > >> >> > > > > > > key-value
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > classes
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change
> history
> > is
> > > >> >> > available
> > > >> >> > > > > and a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > tuple
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > has
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to
> upgrade
> > > any
> > > >> >> > > received
> > > >> >> > > > > > tuple
> > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > last
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow
> nodes
> > > to
> > > >> >> send
> > > >> >> > > > > key-value
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > pairs
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't receive a
> > > schema
> > > >> >> update
> > > >> >> > > > yet)
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > without
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > reverting
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node with
> newer
> > > >> >> classes.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you
> > > mean
> > > >> the
> > > >> >> > > same?
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at
> > > 9:21
> > > >> AM
> > > >> >> > Ivan
> > > >> >> > > > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not ignore
> > > >> history.
> > > >> >> We
> > > >> >> > > had
> > > >> >> > > > a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > thread
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can resume
> > it.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08
> > > GMT+03:00,
> > > >> >> Denis
> > > >> >> > > > Magda
> > > >> >> > > > > <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense,
> > > thanks
> > > >> for
> > > >> >> > > > > > explaining.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we need
> to
> > > >> have a
> > > >> >> > > > separate
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms
> > > >> substitution.
> > > >> >> > I'll
> > > >> >> > > > > > > appreciate
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > if
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing pointers to
> > any
> > > >> >> > relevant
> > > >> >> > > > IEPs
> > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > reasoning
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020
> > at
> > > >> 6:01
> > > >> >> PM
> > > >> >> > > > > Valentin
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > >> >> > > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the
> wording
> > in
> > > >> the
> > > >> >> IEP
> > > >> >> > > is
> > > >> >> > > > a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > little
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > bit
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you should
> not
> > > >> create
> > > >> >> > > nested
> > > >> >> > > > > > POJOs,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > but
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO that
> is
> > > >> mapped
> > > >> >> to
> > > >> >> > a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > particular
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not
> > > supported.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this
> > correct?
> > > >> >> Please
> > > >> >> > > let
> > > >> >> > > > me
> > > >> >> > > > > > > know
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > if
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the "cache"
> > > >> term, I
> > > >> >> > agree
> > > >> >> > > > > that
> > > >> >> > > > > > it
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can
> replace
> > it
> > > >> >> with.
> > > >> >> > > > "Table"
> > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > tightly
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional in
> > our
> > > >> >> case.
> > > >> >> > Do
> > > >> >> > > > you
> > > >> >> > > > > > want
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > create a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8,
> 2020
> > at
> > > >> >> 4:37 PM
> > > >> >> > > > Denis
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked the
> > IEP
> > > >> again
> > > >> >> > and
> > > >> >> > > > > have a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > few
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > questions.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested
> > > >> objects
> > > >> >> and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > collections
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > are
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs
> > should
> > > >> >> either
> > > >> >> > be
> > > >> >> > > > > > inlined
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > into
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you
> provide a
> > > DDL
> > > >> >> code
> > > >> >> > > > > snippet
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > showing
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to work?
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep
> using
> > > the
> > > >> >> terms
> > > >> >> > > > > "cache"
> > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right time to
> > > >> discuss
> > > >> >> an
> > > >> >> > > > > > alternate
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > name
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the
> > > "table"
> > > >> >> > should
> > > >> >> > > > stay
> > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one
> of
> > > the
> > > >> >> > primary
> > > >> >> > > > APIs
> > > >> >> > > > > > in
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7,
> 2020
> > > at
> > > >> >> 12:26
> > > >> >> > PM
> > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > >> >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your
> > point. I
> > > >> >> agree
> > > >> >> > > that
> > > >> >> > > > > with
> > > >> >> > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > automatic
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last
> > > >> territory.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we
> > > >> support
> > > >> >> > > > automatic
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > evolution,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a
> cache
> > > >> without
> > > >> >> > > schema
> > > >> >> > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > inferring
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other words, we
> > can
> > > >> have
> > > >> >> > both
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do
> > you
> > > >> >> think?
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7,
> > 2020
> > > >> at
> > > >> >> 5:59
> > > >> >> > > AM
> > > >> >> > > > > > Alexey
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> >> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I
> > got
> > > >> your
> > > >> >> > > concern
> > > >> >> > > > > > now.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > As
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > terminology,
> I
> > am
> > > >> >> > > absolutely
> > > >> >> > > > > fine
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > with
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the approach
> > > best.
> > > >> >> > Dynamic
> > > >> >> > > or
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > evolving
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > corresponding
> > > >> changes
> > > >> >> to
> > > >> >> > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > IEP
> > > >> >> > > > > > > once
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > we
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > settle
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент.
> > 2020
> > > >> г. в
> > > >> >> > > 11:33,
> > > >> >> > > > > Ivan
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you
> for
> > > >> your
> > > >> >> > > answer!
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My
> > > understanding
> > > >> is
> > > >> >> a
> > > >> >> > > > little
> > > >> >> > > > > > bit
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > different.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > definitely
> > > >> should be
> > > >> >> > > > > possible.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > But
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > I
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > see
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > main
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is
> > > >> updated".
> > > >> >> I
> > > >> >> > > > treat a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > common
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data
> > > >> >> manipulation
> > > >> >> > > > > > operations
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > are
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > clearly
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > interesting
> > > >> >> > capabilities,
> > > >> >> > > > > e.g.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > preventing
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken
> data
> > > >> >> > operations,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > restricting
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > Schema-first
> > > >> means
> > > >> >> > that
> > > >> >> > > > > > schema
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > exists
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> compliant
> > > with
> > > >> >> it -
> > > >> >> > > > that's
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > exactly
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A
> schema-last
> > > >> >> approach
> > > >> >> > > > > > mentioned
> > > >> >> > > > > > > in
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > also
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but
> > it
> > > is
> > > >> >> > > inferred
> > > >> >> > > > > from
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > data.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing
> > > >> approach?
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would
> > > like
> > > >> to
> > > >> >> > say,
> > > >> >> > > > that
> > > >> >> > > > > > my
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > main
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> terminology.
> > > And
> > > >> I
> > > >> >> > > suppose
> > > >> >> > > > if
> > > >> >> > > > > > it
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > confuses
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused as
> > > >> well. My
> > > >> >> > > > feeling
> > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > closer
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving
> > > schema".
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07
> > 0:47
> > > >> >> > > GMT+03:00,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > >> >> > > > > > >:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't
> see
> > > an
> > > >> >> issue
> > > >> >> > > with
> > > >> >> > > > > > that.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance
> and
> > > all
> > > >> >> the
> > > >> >> > > > stored
> > > >> >> > > > > > data
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > compliant
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is
> > proposed.
> > > >> There
> > > >> >> > are
> > > >> >> > > no
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > restrictions
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat,
> Sep
> > > 5,
> > > >> >> 2020
> > > >> >> > at
> > > >> >> > > > 9:52
> > > >> >> > > > > > PM
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ivan
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a
> > > little
> > > >> bit
> > > >> >> > > > confused
> > > >> >> > > > > > > with
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a
> > survey
> > > >> [1]
> > > >> >> (see
> > > >> >> > > > part
> > > >> >> > > > > X
> > > >> >> > > > > > > Semi
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Structured
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a
> "dynamic
> > > >> >> schema"
> > > >> >> > > > > approach
> > > >> >> > > > > > > as a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > kind
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> 2020-09-02
> > > >> 1:53
> > > >> >> > > > GMT+03:00,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > Denis
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > However,
> > > >> could
> > > >> >> > you
> > > >> >> > > > > please
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is
> > there
> > > a
> > > >> use
> > > >> >> > case
> > > >> >> > > > for
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one
> so
> > > >> far)?
> > > >> >> If
> > > >> >> > so,
> > > >> >> > > > > what
> > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this?
> > In
> > > my
> > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I
> > > >> missing
> > > >> >> > > > something?
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good
> > > point,
> > > >> >> yes,
> > > >> >> > if
> > > >> >> > > > all
> > > >> >> > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > ORM
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > internally,
> > > >> >> then
> > > >> >> > > they
> > > >> >> > > > > can
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > easily
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > translate
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >> INSERT/UPDATE
> > > >> >> > > > statement
> > > >> >> > > > > > that
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > lists
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring
> > > Data
> > > >> >> > > > integration
> > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > already
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > based
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be
> > > >> improved
> > > >> >> > once
> > > >> >> > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve
> a
> > > ton
> > > >> of
> > > >> >> > > > usability
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > issues.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I
> would
> > > >> revise
> > > >> >> the
> > > >> >> > > > > > Hibernate
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase.
> > > Can't
> > > >> >> say
> > > >> >> > if
> > > >> >> > > > it's
> > > >> >> > > > > > > used
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > lot
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> getting
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> @Michael
> > > >> >> Pollind,
> > > >> >> > > I'll
> > > >> >> > > > > > loop
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > you
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > long
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite
> > > >> support
> > > >> >> for
> > > >> >> > > > > > Micornaut
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Data
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > >> >>
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came
> > > across
> > > >> >> some
> > > >> >> > > > > > challenges.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Just
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > watch
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming
> > in
> > > >> >> Ignite
> > > >> >> > > 3.0.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On
> Mon,
> > > Aug
> > > >> 31,
> > > >> >> > 2020
> > > >> >> > > > at
> > > >> >> > > > > > 5:11
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi
> > Denis,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > Generally
> > > >> >> > > speaking, I
> > > >> >> > > > > > > believe
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > addresses
> > > >> the
> > > >> >> > issue
> > > >> >> > > > if
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > duplicate
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> because
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> schema
> > > >> will be
> > > >> >> > > > created
> > > >> >> > > > > > for
> > > >> >> > > > > > > a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > cache,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > Basically,
> > > >> the
> > > >> >> > > schema
> > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > define
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > whether
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > which
> > > >> >> fields
> > > >> >> > > are
> > > >> >> > > > > > > included
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have
> > must
> > > >> be
> > > >> >> > > > compliant
> > > >> >> > > > > > with
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > this,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data
> as
> > > >> with a
> > > >> >> > set
> > > >> >> > > of
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > records,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > However,
> > > >> could
> > > >> >> > you
> > > >> >> > > > > please
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is
> > there
> > > a
> > > >> use
> > > >> >> > case
> > > >> >> > > > for
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one
> so
> > > >> far)?
> > > >> >> If
> > > >> >> > so,
> > > >> >> > > > > what
> > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this?
> > In
> > > my
> > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I
> > > >> missing
> > > >> >> > > > something?
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On
> Mon,
> > > Aug
> > > >> >> 31,
> > > >> >> > > 2020
> > > >> >> > > > at
> > > >> >> > > > > > > 2:08
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> Val,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I
> > would
> > > >> >> propose
> > > >> >> > > > > adding
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > another
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > point
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> list
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > related
> > > >> to
> > > >> >> the
> > > >> >> > > ORM
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > frameworks
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> Micronaut
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> many
> > > >> others.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >> Presently,
> > > >> >> the
> > > >> >> > > > > storage
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > engine
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requires
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> from
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> value
> > > >> ones
> > > >> >> that
> > > >> >> > > > > > > complicate
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >> frameworks
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >> (especially
> > > >> >> if
> > > >> >> > a
> > > >> >> > > > key
> > > >> >> > > > > > > object
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > comprises
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> More
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> found
> > > >> here:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It
> > will
> > > >> be
> > > >> >> nice
> > > >> >> > > if
> > > >> >> > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > new
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > single
> > > >> >> entity
> > > >> >> > > > object
> > > >> >> > > > > > when
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > it
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > comes
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> split
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > entity
> > > >> into
> > > >> >> a
> > > >> >> > key
> > > >> >> > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > value.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Just
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all
> > the
> > > >> >> > essential
> > > >> >> > > > > > public
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > APIs
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > single-entity
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> based
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > approach.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> What
> > do
> > > >> you
> > > >> >> > > think?
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> Denis
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On
> > Fri,
> > > >> Aug
> > > >> >> 28,
> > > >> >> > > > 2020
> > > >> >> > > > > at
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > 3:50
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > PM
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> Igniters,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> One
> > > of
> > > >> the
> > > >> >> > big
> > > >> >> > > > > > changes
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proposed
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> "schema-first
> > > >> >> > > > > > > approach".
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > To
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > add
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > started
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> for
> > > >> this
> > > >> >> > > change:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > Please
> > > >> >> take a
> > > >> >> > > > look
> > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > let
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > me
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> thoughts,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> suggestions,
> > > >> >> > or
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > objections.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > -Val
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best
> > > regards,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan
> > > Pavlukhin
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best
> regards,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan
> > Pavlukhin
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > --
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > --
> > > >> >> > > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > --
> > > >> >> > > > Best regards,
> > > >> >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>]

Pavel, good point.
Thanks. I've added async methods.

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 2:29 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org> wrote:

> Andrey,
>
> What about corresponding async APIs, do we add them now or later?
>
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 8:11 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Igniters.
> >
> > I've created a PR for Table access API [1].
> > This is an initial version. So, any suggestions\objections are welcomed.
> > Please, do not hesitate to write your comments and\or examples to the PR.
> >
> > Ignite-api module contains API classes, e.g. TableView classes as
> > projections for a table for different purposes.
> > Ignite-table contains dummy implementation and Example class explained
> how
> > it is supposed to be used.
> >
> >
> > Also, I'm still waiting for any feedback for Schema configuration public
> > API PR [2].
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/33
> > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:05 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I've updated a PR regarding your feedback [1].
> > >
> > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:58 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Folks,
> > >>
> > >> I updated the IEP to contain the missing pieces; actually, most of the
> > >> questions here were covered by the text. Please let me know if there
> is
> > >> something still missing or unclear.
> > >>
> > >> чт, 31 дек. 2020 г. в 12:48, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > >> >:
> > >>
> > >> > Mikhail and Igniters,
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks for your comments. The questions are reasonable, though I
> think
> > >> all
> > >> > concerns are addressed by the IEP as Val mentioned. I will update
> the
> > >> > document according to your questions in the following week or so, so
> > we
> > >> can
> > >> > have a constructive discussion further.
> > >> >
> > >> > ср, 30 дек. 2020 г. в 11:45, Michael Cherkasov <
> > >> > michael.cherkasov@gmail.com>:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Hi Val, Andrey,
> > >> >>
> > >> >> thank you for clarifying.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I still have a few comments.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> 1. one table == one schema. KV vs SQL:
> > >> >> Looks like all agreed that KV is just a special case of a regular
> > table
> > >> >> with (blob,blob) schema.
> > >> >> I worry about the case when the user starts from KV case and later
> > will
> > >> >> try
> > >> >> to expand it and try to leverage SQL for the existing KV table it
> > >> won't be
> > >> >> able to do so and will require to reload data. which isn't
> convenient
> > >> and
> > >> >> sometimes not even possible. Is it possible to extract a new field
> > from
> > >> >> (blob, blob) schema and apply index on it?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> 2. Could you please also list all ways of schema definition in the
> > >> IEP? It
> > >> >> significant change and I bet the main point of this IEP, everyone
> > hates
> > >> >> QueryEntities, they are difficult to manage and in general, it's
> very
> > >> >> confusing to have a data model(schemas) and node/cluster
> > configuration
> > >> in
> > >> >> one place.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> So there will be SchemaBuilder and SQL to define schemas, but
> Andrey
> > >> also
> > >> >> mentioned annotations.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I personally against configuration via annotations, while it's
> > >> convenient
> > >> >> for development, it difficult to manage because different classes
> can
> > >> be
> > >> >> deployed on different clients/servers nodes and it can lead to
> > >> >> unpredictable results.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> 3. IEP doesn't mention field type changes, only drop/add fields.
> > Field
> > >> >> type
> > >> >> changes are extremely painful right now(if even possible), so it
> > would
> > >> be
> > >> >> nice if some scenarios would be supported(like int8->int16, or
> > >> >> int8->String).
> > >> >>
> > >> >> 4. got it, I thought IEP will have more details about the
> > >> implementation.
> > >> >> I've seen Andrey even sent benchmark results for a new
> serialization,
> > >> will
> > >> >> ping him about this.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> 5. Thanks for the clarification. I had a wrong understanding of
> > strick
> > >> >> mode.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> вт, 29 дек. 2020 г. в 19:32, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > >> >> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > Hi Mike,
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Thanks for providing your feedback. Please see my comments below.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > I would also encourage you to go through the IEP-54 [1] - it has
> a
> > >> lot
> > >> >> of
> > >> >> > detail on the topic.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > [1]
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > -Val
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:22 PM Michael Cherkasov <
> > >> >> > michael.cherkasov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > Hi all,
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > I reviewed the mail thread and proposal page and I still don't
> > >> fully
> > >> >> > > understand what is going to be changed, I would really
> appreciate
> > >> it
> > >> >> if
> > >> >> > you
> > >> >> > > will answer a few questions:
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > 1. Are you going to leave only one schema per cache? if so,
> will
> > be
> > >> >> there
> > >> >> > > an option to have a table with arbitrary objects(pure KV case)?
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > My opinion is that KV case should be natively supported. I think
> > this
> > >> >> still
> > >> >> > needs to be thought over, my current view on this is that we
> should
> > >> have
> > >> >> > separate APIs for KV and more generic storages. KV storage can be
> > >> >> > implemented as a "table" with two BLOB fields where we will store
> > >> >> > serialized key-value pairs. That would imply deserialization on
> > read,
> > >> >> but I
> > >> >> > believe this is OK for KV use cases. I'm happy to hear other
> ideas
> > >> >> though
> > >> >> > :)
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0 have to define schema?
> > >> >> > SchemaBuilder
> > >> >> > > and SQL only? Is there an option to put the schema definition
> to
> > >> the
> > >> >> > > configuration?(I really don't like this, I would prefer to have
> > >> >> > > separate scripts to create schemas)
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > There will be no such thing as a static configuration in the
> first
> > >> >> place.
> > >> >> > Tables and schemas are created in runtime. Even if there is a
> file
> > >> >> provided
> > >> >> > on node startup, this file is only applied in the scope of the
> > >> 'start'
> > >> >> > operation. All configurations will be stored in a meta storage
> > >> >> available to
> > >> >> > all nodes, as opposed to individual files.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > 3. Is there a way to change field type? if yes, can it be done
> in
> > >> >> > runtime?
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Absolutely! IEP-54 has a whole section about schema evolution.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going to be re-worked too, is
> > >> there
> > >> >> any
> > >> >> > > IEP for this?
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > BinaryMarshaller as a tool for arbitrary object serialization
> will
> > be
> > >> >> gone,
> > >> >> > but we will reuse a lot of its concept to implement an internal
> > tuple
> > >> >> > serialization mechanism. IEP-54 has the description of the
> proposed
> > >> data
> > >> >> > format.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > 5. I don't like automatic schema evaluation when a new field is
> > >> added
> > >> >> > > automatically on record put, so is there a way to prohibit this
> > >> >> behavior?
> > >> >> > >  I think all schema changes should be done only explicitly
> except
> > >> >> initial
> > >> >> > > schema creation.
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > The way I see it is that we should have two modes: schema-first
> and
> > >> >> > schema-last. Schema-first means exactly what you've described -
> > >> schemas
> > >> >> are
> > >> >> > defined and updated explicitly by the user. In the schema-last
> > mode,
> > >> >> > the user does not deal with schemas, as they are inferred from
> the
> > >> data
> > >> >> > inserted into tables. We should definitely not mix these modes -
> it
> > >> has
> > >> >> to
> > >> >> > be one or another. And it probably makes sense to discuss which
> > mode
> > >> >> should
> > >> >> > be the default one.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > Thanks,
> > >> >> > > Mike.
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > >> >> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > >> >> > > >:
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > > Hi, Igniters.
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > We all know that the current QueryEntity API is not
> convenient
> > >> and
> > >> >> > needs
> > >> >> > > to
> > >> >> > > > be reworked.
> > >> >> > > > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema configuration public
> > API
> > >> >> for
> > >> >> > > > Ignite 3.0.
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > New schema configuration uses Builder pattern, which looks
> more
> > >> >> > > comfortable
> > >> >> > > > to use.
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package with the API
> itself,
> > >> and
> > >> >> a
> > >> >> > > draft
> > >> >> > > > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
> > >> >> > > > and a test that demonstrates how the API could be used.
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > Please note:
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with static factory
> > >> methods.
> > >> >> > > > * The implementation is decoupled and can be easily extracted
> > to
> > >> >> > separate
> > >> >> > > > module if we decide to do so.
> > >> >> > > > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are missed, they will
> be
> > >> added
> > >> >> > > lately
> > >> >> > > > in separate tickes.
> > >> >> > > > * Index configuration extends marker interface that makes
> > >> possible
> > >> >> to
> > >> >> > > > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
> > >> >> > > > Hopfully, we could add a persistent geo-indices support in
> > >> future.
> > >> >> > > > * Supposedly, current table schema can be changed via
> > >> builder-like
> > >> >> > > > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See
> > >> >> 'TableModificationBuilder'
> > >> >> > > for
> > >> >> > > > details.
> > >> >> > > > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have 'toBuilder()'
> converter
> > >> for
> > >> >> that
> > >> >> > > > purpose as it is a Schema Manager responsibility to create
> > >> mutator
> > >> >> > > objects
> > >> >> > > > from the current schema,
> > >> >> > > > but implementing the Schema manager is out of scope and will
> be
> > >> >> > designed
> > >> >> > > > within the next task.
> > >> >> > > > * Interfaces implementations are out of scope. I did not
> intend
> > >> to
> > >> >> > merge
> > >> >> > > > them right now, but for test/demostration purposes.
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > It is NOT the final version and some may be changed before
> the
> > >> first
> > >> >> > > > release of course.
> > >> >> > > > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed with this
> approach
> > or
> > >> >> some
> > >> >> > > > issues should be resolved at first.
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > Any thoughts or objections?
> > >> >> > > > Are interfaces good enough to be merged within the current
> > >> ticket?
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <
> > >> jury.gerzhedowich@gmail.com>
> > >> >> > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types:
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
> > >> >> > > > > 2. It requires adding new types to the internal
> > representation,
> > >> >> > > protocol,
> > >> >> > > > > e.t.c.
> > >> >> > > > > 3. internal representation should be the same as we keep
> sign
> > >> >> types.
> > >> >> > So
> > >> >> > > > it
> > >> >> > > > > will not requires more memory
> > >> >> > > > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such types for
> platforms
> > >> >> which
> > >> >> > not
> > >> >> > > > > support unsigned types. For example, a user could derive -6
> > >> value
> > >> >> in
> > >> >> > > Java
> > >> >> > > > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits perspective will be
> > >> >> right). I
> > >> >> > > > think
> > >> >> > > > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such cases, especially
> it
> > >> >> will be
> > >> >> > > bad
> > >> >> > > > > for unsigned long when we require returns BigInteger type.
> > >> >> > > > > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix for new types
> > like
> > >> a
> > >> >> > > '250u' -
> > >> >> > > > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
> > >> >> > > > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive comparison logic
> > for
> > >> >> > indexes
> > >> >> > > > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for expressions. I
> think
> > it
> > >> >> not
> > >> >> > > > > possible for the current H2 engine and probably possible
> for
> > >> the
> > >> >> new
> > >> >> > > > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from anybody who
> involved
> > in
> > >> >> this
> > >> >> > > part
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > WDYT?
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > >> >> > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > >> >> > > > > >:
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0: once we the
> > >> actual
> > >> >> > type
> > >> >> > > > > > information, we can make proper runtime adjustments and
> > >> >> conversions
> > >> >> > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will be just a bit
> more
> > >> >> > > expensive.
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > >> >> ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > >> >> > >:
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
> > >> >> > > > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
> > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons and so on
> are
> > >> >> broken
> > >> >> > > > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned this
> > somewhere
> > >> >> > above.
> > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document that SQL is not
> > >> >> supported
> > >> >> > on
> > >> >> > > > > those
> > >> >> > > > > > > types,
> > >> >> > > > > > > end of story.
> > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > >> >> > > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > >> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable request. I
> thought
> > >> about
> > >> >> > this
> > >> >> > > > > when
> > >> >> > > > > > I
> > >> >> > > > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add these
> types
> > >> right
> > >> >> > > away.
> > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning
> > with
> > >> >> .NET
> > >> >> > > and
> > >> >> > > > > C++
> > >> >> > > > > > :)
> > >> >> > > > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually works as
> expected,
> > it
> > >> >> needs
> > >> >> > > > some
> > >> >> > > > > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns are false):
> > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > >    - It's true that equality check works properly,
> but
> > >> for
> > >> >> SQL
> > >> >> > > > range
> > >> >> > > > > > > >    queries it will break unless some special care is
> > >> taken
> > >> >> on
> > >> >> > > Java
> > >> >> > > > > > side:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > for
> > >> >> > > > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will be
> converted
> > >> to
> > >> >> -1,
> > >> >> > > > which
> > >> >> > > > > > will
> > >> >> > > > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we don't have unsigned
> > >> types
> > >> >> > now,
> > >> >> > > I
> > >> >> > > > > > doubt
> > >> >> > > > > > > it
> > >> >> > > > > > > >    works.
> > >> >> > > > > > > >    - There is an obvious cross-platform data loss
> when
> > >> >> > > "intuitive"
> > >> >> > > > > type
> > >> >> > > > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8 corresponds to byte
> > >> type in
> > >> >> > > .NET,
> > >> >> > > > > but
> > >> >> > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have to use short
> > type
> > >> in
> > >> >> > Java,
> > >> >> > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> >> > > > > > > >    will also need to take care of the range check
> > during
> > >> >> > > > > > serialization).
> > >> >> > > > > > > I
> > >> >> > > > > > > >    think we can even allow to try to deserialize a
> > value
> > >> >> into
> > >> >> > > > > arbitrary
> > >> >> > > > > > > > type,
> > >> >> > > > > > > >    but throw an exception if the range is out of
> > bounds.
> > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once all the
> > details
> > >> >> are
> > >> >> > > > settled
> > >> >> > > > > > > here?
> > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > >> >> > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >:
> > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't be treated
> > >> >> correctly
> > >> >> > > for
> > >> >> > > > > now
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > I think we could make "true" support for unsigned
> > >> types,
> > >> >> but
> > >> >> > > they
> > >> >> > > > > > will
> > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map uint64 to
> Java
> > >> long
> > >> >> > > > > primitive,
> > >> >> > > > > > > but
> > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > BigInteger only.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64 to Java long,
> > but
> > >> >> treat
> > >> >> > > > > negative
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > values in a different way to preserve correct
> > ordering.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > These limitations will affect only mixed
> environments
> > >> when
> > >> >> > .Net
> > >> >> > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > Java
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > used to access the data.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > Will this solution address your issues?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > >> >> > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the
> beginning
> > >> with
> > >> >> > .NET
> > >> >> > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > C++
> > >> >> > > > > > > :)
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as cache keys and
> > >> >> values,
> > >> >> > as
> > >> >> > > > > fields
> > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > properties,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y clauses) -
> it
> > >> >> works
> > >> >> > > > > > > transparently
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > for
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the users.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats those values
> as
> > >> >> > > > corresponding
> > >> >> > > > > > > signed
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > types.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in some cases
> only
> > >> >> because
> > >> >> > > > there
> > >> >> > > > > > are
> > >> >> > > > > > > no
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very simple change to
> > the
> > >> >> > > protocol
> > >> >> > > > -
> > >> >> > > > > > add
> > >> >> > > > > > > > type
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as signed
> > >> >> counterparts.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov
> <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise
> > >> representation
> > >> >> is
> > >> >> > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > same)
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a uByte
> field
> > >> and
> > >> >> map
> > >> >> > it
> > >> >> > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > 'uint8'
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > column.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to "250" and put
> the
> > >> >> object
> > >> >> > > > into a
> > >> >> > > > > > > > table,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a single byte
> > 'int8'
> > >> >> > column.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it to
> directly
> > >> the
> > >> >> Java
> > >> >> > > > > object
> > >> >> > > > > > > > field
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > of
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8 type to
> Java
> > >> >> 'short'
> > >> >> > > type
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > because the one expected to see "250" as a
> value
> > >> which
> > >> >> > > > doesn't
> > >> >> > > > > > fit
> > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > signed type.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a BigInteger field
> in
> > >> >> Java.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat column value as
> Java
> > >> >> 'byte'
> > >> >> > as
> > >> >> > > > is,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > because
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a negative value, so
> > it
> > >> >> should
> > >> >> > > be
> > >> >> > > > > cast
> > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > short
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger for uint64)
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will require a
> different
> > >> >> > > comparator.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel Tupitsyn
> <
> > >> >> > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a good idea.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the simple
> > approach
> > >> I
> > >> >> > > > described?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrey
> > Mashenkov
> > >> <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing range for
> > unsigned
> > >> >> types
> > >> >> > > > then
> > >> >> > > > > we
> > >> >> > > > > > > > could
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > add a
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on schema
> level
> > >> >> (like
> > >> >> > > > > > nullability
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > flag)
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types in storage.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate storage
> > >> type-system
> > >> >> and
> > >> >> > > > binary
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > protocol
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of type will
> match
> > 1
> > >> to
> > >> >> 1
> > >> >> > > with
> > >> >> > > > > > > storage
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (native)
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either have a
> separate
> > >> type
> > >> >> id
> > >> >> > or
> > >> >> > > > > treat
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > serialized
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed or
> unsigned
> > >> >> flag).
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever foresee the
> > >> >> consequences
> > >> >> > of
> > >> >> > > > > using
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > types.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned types
> > perfectly
> > >> >> works
> > >> >> > > > with
> > >> >> > > > > > some
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > database,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite successor
> > confession
> > >> >> with
> > >> >> > our
> > >> >> > > > > > > "native"
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he can use the
> power
> > >> of
> > >> >> > Ignite
> > >> >> > > > > > Compute
> > >> >> > > > > > > > on
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either fail to use
> his
> > >> >> > unsigned
> > >> >> > > > data
> > >> >> > > > > > on
> > >> >> > > > > > > > Java
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > due
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due to natural Java
> > >> type
> > >> >> > system
> > >> >> > > > > > > > limitations
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > e.g.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively supported types
> with
> > >> >> possible
> > >> >> > > > value
> > >> >> > > > > > > > ranges
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is what trade-off we
> > >> found
> > >> >> > > > > acceptable:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > narrowing
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use types of wider
> > >> range on
> > >> >> > > > systems
> > >> >> > > > > > like
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > Java.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor
> Sapego <
> > >> >> > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so hard to
> > >> implement
> > >> >> > > > > comparison
> > >> >> > > > > > > of
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not seem to
> > be a
> > >> >> big
> > >> >> > > issue
> > >> >> > > > > > from
> > >> >> > > > > > > my
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned types from
> > Java
> > >> - I
> > >> >> > > think,
> > >> >> > > > > if
> > >> >> > > > > > a
> > >> >> > > > > > > > user
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to interact with
> > it
> > >> >> from
> > >> >> > > Java
> > >> >> > > > he
> > >> >> > > > > > > knows
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > what
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > he
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from platforms
> > where
> > >> >> they
> > >> >> > > have
> > >> >> > > > > > native
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > support
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > widely
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where users
> > >> currently
> > >> >> > have
> > >> >> > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > make a
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > manual
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > casting
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using unsigned types
> when
> > >> they
> > >> >> > use
> > >> >> > > > > > Ignite.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM Pavel
> > >> Tupitsyn <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for those types
> > >> >> > (basically,
> > >> >> > > > just
> > >> >> > > > > > add
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > more
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise
> > >> >> > > representation
> > >> >> > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > same)
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned
> integers,
> > >> so
> > >> >> we
> > >> >> > can
> > >> >> > > > > > simply
> > >> >> > > > > > > > say
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative comparison is
> not
> > >> >> > supported
> > >> >> > > > in
> > >> >> > > > > > SQL
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (equality
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM Andrey
> > >> >> Mashenkov
> > >> >> > <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have i8 or int8
> > >> >> instead of
> > >> >> > > > > > Integer.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't address the
> > issue.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types should be
> > portable
> > >> >> > across
> > >> >> > > > > > > different
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > systems
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type support.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is that unsigned
> > >> types
> > >> >> > cover
> > >> >> > > > > > > different
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > ranges.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to introduce a
> > >> uLong.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big deal to
> add
> > >> uLong
> > >> >> > type
> > >> >> > > > > > support
> > >> >> > > > > > > > at
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > storage
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and then use
> it
> > >> in
> > >> >> e.g.
> > >> >> > > > .Net
> > >> >> > > > > > > only.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support it in e.g.
> > Java?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range is
> about
> > >> >> (2^-63
> > >> >> > ..
> > >> >> > > > > 2^63)
> > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > range
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to restrict
> > range
> > >> to
> > >> >> (0
> > >> >> > ..
> > >> >> > > > > > 2^63).
> > >> >> > > > > > > > This
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but doesn't
> > look
> > >> >> like
> > >> >> > a
> > >> >> > > > > 'real'
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse when the
> user
> > >> will
> > >> >> use
> > >> >> > > > > uByte,
> > >> >> > > > > > as
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > limitation
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map unsigned
> > >> types
> > >> >> to a
> > >> >> > > > type
> > >> >> > > > > of
> > >> >> > > > > > > > wider
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative values.
> E.g.
> > >> >> uLong to
> > >> >> > > > > > > BigInteger.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive Java type
> > for
> > >> >> Long
> > >> >> > > here.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > However,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > still
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8 bytes,
> but
> > >> >> have a
> > >> >> > > > > special
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > comparator
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid unwanted
> > >> >> > deserialization.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Pavel
> > >> >> Tupitsyn
> > >> >> > <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of "long,
> short,
> > >> >> byte"
> > >> >> > in
> > >> >> > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > protocol
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style, which is
> > concise
> > >> >> and
> > >> >> > > > > > > unambiguous:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM
> Igor
> > >> >> Sapego <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support that. Also, if
> we
> > >> are
> > >> >> > > aiming
> > >> >> > > > > for
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger platform-independance,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may want to
> > support
> > >> >> > > > > bit-notation
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > (int32,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a different type
> on
> > >> >> > different
> > >> >> > > > > > > platforms
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often when using
> ODBC
> > >> for
> > >> >> > > > example).
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM
> > Pavel
> > >> >> > > Tupitsyn
> > >> >> > > > <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should support
> > unsigned
> > >> >> data
> > >> >> > > > types:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have them, but
> many
> > >> >> other
> > >> >> > > > > languages
> > >> >> > > > > > > do,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing number of
> > thin
> > >> >> > clients
> > >> >> > > > > this
> > >> >> > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > important.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in current
> > Ignite.NET
> > >> >> > > > > implementation
> > >> >> > > > > > > we
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > store
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain when it
> > >> comes
> > >> >> to
> > >> >> > > > > > metadata,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > binary
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to deserialize int
> as
> > >> uint
> > >> >> > when
> > >> >> > > > you
> > >> >> > > > > > > have
> > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > class,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28
> PM
> > >> >> Andrey
> > >> >> > > > > > Mashenkov <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both serializers
> > use
> > >> >> > > reflection
> > >> >> > > > > > API.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will allow users
> to
> > >> >> > configure
> > >> >> > > > > > static
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > schema
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > along
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still need to
> > >> >> validate
> > >> >> > > user
> > >> >> > > > > > > classes
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > on
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > client
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in the grid
> > >> and
> > >> >> > > > reflection
> > >> >> > > > > > API
> > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few articles
> on
> > >> the
> > >> >> > > internet
> > >> >> > > > > on
> > >> >> > > > > > > how
> > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > enable
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task for
> > supporting
> > >> >> > > GraalVM,
> > >> >> > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > maybe
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > someone
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM will
> > >> suggest a
> > >> >> > > > solution
> > >> >> > > > > > or
> > >> >> > > > > > > a
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proper
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is found, we
> > >> could
> > >> >> > allow
> > >> >> > > > > users
> > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > write
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > own
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I don't think
> > it
> > >> is
> > >> >> a
> > >> >> > > good
> > >> >> > > > > idea
> > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > expose
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the public.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55
> AM
> > >> >> Denis
> > >> >> > > > Magda <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the
> > update,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the serializers
> > >> take
> > >> >> into
> > >> >> > > > > > > > consideration
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native-image-generation
> > >> feature of
> > >> >> > > > GraalVM?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current binary
> > >> >> marshaller,
> > >> >> > we
> > >> >> > > > > can't
> > >> >> > > > > > > even
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > generate
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using our thin
> > >> client
> > >> >> > > APIs.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at
> 4:39
> > AM
> > >> >> > Andrey
> > >> >> > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to continue
> > >> discussion
> > >> >> of
> > >> >> > > > IEP-54
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who is
> > >> interested
> > >> >> > had a
> > >> >> > > > > > chance
> > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > get
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not hesitate
> to
> > >> ask
> > >> >> > > > questions
> > >> >> > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > share
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > your
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a prototype
> > of
> > >> >> > > serializer
> > >> >> > > > > [2]
> > >> >> > > > > > > for
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > data
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I compared 2
> > >> >> approaches
> > >> >> > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > (de)serialize
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java
> reflection/unsafe
> > >> API
> > >> >> and
> > >> >> > > > > similar
> > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > one
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > we
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second one
> > generates
> > >> >> > > serializer
> > >> >> > > > > for
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > particular
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > user
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library for
> > >> compilation.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows better
> > >> results
> > >> >> in
> > >> >> > > > > > > benchmarks.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go with it
> > as
> > >> >> > default
> > >> >> > > > > > > serializer
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation as a
> > fallback
> > >> if
> > >> >> > > someone
> > >> >> > > > > > will
> > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > issues
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of
> tasks
> > >> >> under
> > >> >> > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > umbrella
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ticket
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to create
> > more
> > >> >> > tickets
> > >> >> > > > for
> > >> >> > > > > > > > schema
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > manager
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation, but would
> > >> like
> > >> >> to
> > >> >> > > > clarify
> > >> >> > > > > > > some
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > details.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought schemaManager
> on
> > >> each
> > >> >> > node
> > >> >> > > > > should
> > >> >> > > > > > > > held:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping of
> > "schema
> > >> >> > > version"
> > >> >> > > > > <-->
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > validated
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide schema
> > >> changes
> > >> >> > > > history.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client side.
> Before
> > >> any
> > >> >> > > > key-value
> > >> >> > > > > > API
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > operation
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a given
> > key-value
> > >> >> pair.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no
> > local-mapping
> > >> >> exists
> > >> >> > > > for a
> > >> >> > > > > > > given
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema has a
> > >> more
> > >> >> > recent
> > >> >> > > > > > version
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be validated
> against
> > >> the
> > >> >> > > latest
> > >> >> > > > > > > version
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object doesn't fit
> to
> > >> the
> > >> >> > > latest
> > >> >> > > > > > schema
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > depends
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail the
> > >> operation
> > >> >> > > > ('strict'
> > >> >> > > > > > > mode)
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > or
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > a
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a new schema
> > >> version
> > >> >> > > should
> > >> >> > > > > be
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > propagated
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server side we
> > usually
> > >> >> have
> > >> >> > no
> > >> >> > > > > > > key-value
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > classes
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change history
> is
> > >> >> > available
> > >> >> > > > > and a
> > >> >> > > > > > > > tuple
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > has
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to upgrade
> > any
> > >> >> > > received
> > >> >> > > > > > tuple
> > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > last
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow nodes
> > to
> > >> >> send
> > >> >> > > > > key-value
> > >> >> > > > > > > > pairs
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > of
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't receive a
> > schema
> > >> >> update
> > >> >> > > > yet)
> > >> >> > > > > > > > without
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > reverting
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node with newer
> > >> >> classes.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you
> > mean
> > >> the
> > >> >> > > same?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at
> > 9:21
> > >> AM
> > >> >> > Ivan
> > >> >> > > > > > > Pavlukhin
> > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not ignore
> > >> history.
> > >> >> We
> > >> >> > > had
> > >> >> > > > a
> > >> >> > > > > > > thread
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > many
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can resume
> it.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >>
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08
> > GMT+03:00,
> > >> >> Denis
> > >> >> > > > Magda
> > >> >> > > > > <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense,
> > thanks
> > >> for
> > >> >> > > > > > explaining.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we need to
> > >> have a
> > >> >> > > > separate
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms
> > >> substitution.
> > >> >> > I'll
> > >> >> > > > > > > appreciate
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > if
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing pointers to
> any
> > >> >> > relevant
> > >> >> > > > IEPs
> > >> >> > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > reasoning
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020
> at
> > >> 6:01
> > >> >> PM
> > >> >> > > > > Valentin
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > >> >> > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the wording
> in
> > >> the
> > >> >> IEP
> > >> >> > > is
> > >> >> > > > a
> > >> >> > > > > > > little
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > bit
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you should not
> > >> create
> > >> >> > > nested
> > >> >> > > > > > POJOs,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > but
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO that is
> > >> mapped
> > >> >> to
> > >> >> > a
> > >> >> > > > > > > particular
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not
> > supported.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this
> correct?
> > >> >> Please
> > >> >> > > let
> > >> >> > > > me
> > >> >> > > > > > > know
> > >> >> > > > > > > > if
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > missing
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the "cache"
> > >> term, I
> > >> >> > agree
> > >> >> > > > > that
> > >> >> > > > > > it
> > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can replace
> it
> > >> >> with.
> > >> >> > > > "Table"
> > >> >> > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > tightly
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional in
> our
> > >> >> case.
> > >> >> > Do
> > >> >> > > > you
> > >> >> > > > > > want
> > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > create a
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020
> at
> > >> >> 4:37 PM
> > >> >> > > > Denis
> > >> >> > > > > > > > Magda <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked the
> IEP
> > >> again
> > >> >> > and
> > >> >> > > > > have a
> > >> >> > > > > > > few
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > questions.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested
> > >> objects
> > >> >> and
> > >> >> > > > > > > collections
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > are
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs
> should
> > >> >> either
> > >> >> > be
> > >> >> > > > > > inlined
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > into
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you provide a
> > DDL
> > >> >> code
> > >> >> > > > > snippet
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > showing
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > how
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to work?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep using
> > the
> > >> >> terms
> > >> >> > > > > "cache"
> > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right time to
> > >> discuss
> > >> >> an
> > >> >> > > > > > alternate
> > >> >> > > > > > > > name
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the
> > "table"
> > >> >> > should
> > >> >> > > > stay
> > >> >> > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one of
> > the
> > >> >> > primary
> > >> >> > > > APIs
> > >> >> > > > > > in
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020
> > at
> > >> >> 12:26
> > >> >> > PM
> > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > >> >> > > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your
> point. I
> > >> >> agree
> > >> >> > > that
> > >> >> > > > > with
> > >> >> > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > automatic
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last
> > >> territory.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we
> > >> support
> > >> >> > > > automatic
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > evolution,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a cache
> > >> without
> > >> >> > > schema
> > >> >> > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > inferring
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other words, we
> can
> > >> have
> > >> >> > both
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do
> you
> > >> >> think?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7,
> 2020
> > >> at
> > >> >> 5:59
> > >> >> > > AM
> > >> >> > > > > > Alexey
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I
> got
> > >> your
> > >> >> > > concern
> > >> >> > > > > > now.
> > >> >> > > > > > > As
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > terminology, I
> am
> > >> >> > > absolutely
> > >> >> > > > > fine
> > >> >> > > > > > > > with
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the approach
> > best.
> > >> >> > Dynamic
> > >> >> > > or
> > >> >> > > > > > > > evolving
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > corresponding
> > >> changes
> > >> >> to
> > >> >> > > the
> > >> >> > > > > IEP
> > >> >> > > > > > > once
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > we
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > settle
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент.
> 2020
> > >> г. в
> > >> >> > > 11:33,
> > >> >> > > > > Ivan
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for
> > >> your
> > >> >> > > answer!
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My
> > understanding
> > >> is
> > >> >> a
> > >> >> > > > little
> > >> >> > > > > > bit
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > different.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > definitely
> > >> should be
> > >> >> > > > > possible.
> > >> >> > > > > > > But
> > >> >> > > > > > > > I
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > see
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > main
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is
> > >> updated".
> > >> >> I
> > >> >> > > > treat a
> > >> >> > > > > > > > common
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data
> > >> >> manipulation
> > >> >> > > > > > operations
> > >> >> > > > > > > > are
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > clearly
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > interesting
> > >> >> > capabilities,
> > >> >> > > > > e.g.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > preventing
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data
> > >> >> > operations,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > restricting
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > user
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> Schema-first
> > >> means
> > >> >> > that
> > >> >> > > > > > schema
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > exists
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is compliant
> > with
> > >> >> it -
> > >> >> > > > that's
> > >> >> > > > > > > > exactly
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > what
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last
> > >> >> approach
> > >> >> > > > > > mentioned
> > >> >> > > > > > > in
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > also
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but
> it
> > is
> > >> >> > > inferred
> > >> >> > > > > from
> > >> >> > > > > > > > data.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing
> > >> approach?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would
> > like
> > >> to
> > >> >> > say,
> > >> >> > > > that
> > >> >> > > > > > my
> > >> >> > > > > > > > main
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > concern
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > terminology.
> > And
> > >> I
> > >> >> > > suppose
> > >> >> > > > if
> > >> >> > > > > > it
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > confuses
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused as
> > >> well. My
> > >> >> > > > feeling
> > >> >> > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > closer
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving
> > schema".
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >>
> > >>
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07
> 0:47
> > >> >> > > GMT+03:00,
> > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > >> >> > > > > > >:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see
> > an
> > >> >> issue
> > >> >> > > with
> > >> >> > > > > > that.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance and
> > all
> > >> >> the
> > >> >> > > > stored
> > >> >> > > > > > data
> > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > compliant
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is
> proposed.
> > >> There
> > >> >> > are
> > >> >> > > no
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > restrictions
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep
> > 5,
> > >> >> 2020
> > >> >> > at
> > >> >> > > > 9:52
> > >> >> > > > > > PM
> > >> >> > > > > > > > Ivan
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> vololo100@gmail.com>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a
> > little
> > >> bit
> > >> >> > > > confused
> > >> >> > > > > > > with
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a
> survey
> > >> [1]
> > >> >> (see
> > >> >> > > > part
> > >> >> > > > > X
> > >> >> > > > > > > Semi
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Structured
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic
> > >> >> schema"
> > >> >> > > > > approach
> > >> >> > > > > > > as a
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > kind
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >>
> > >>
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02
> > >> 1:53
> > >> >> > > > GMT+03:00,
> > >> >> > > > > > > Denis
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> However,
> > >> could
> > >> >> > you
> > >> >> > > > > please
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is
> there
> > a
> > >> use
> > >> >> > case
> > >> >> > > > for
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so
> > >> far)?
> > >> >> If
> > >> >> > so,
> > >> >> > > > > what
> > >> >> > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this?
> In
> > my
> > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I
> > >> missing
> > >> >> > > > something?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good
> > point,
> > >> >> yes,
> > >> >> > if
> > >> >> > > > all
> > >> >> > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > ORM
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > internally,
> > >> >> then
> > >> >> > > they
> > >> >> > > > > can
> > >> >> > > > > > > > easily
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > translate
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > >> INSERT/UPDATE
> > >> >> > > > statement
> > >> >> > > > > > that
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > lists
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > all
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring
> > Data
> > >> >> > > > integration
> > >> >> > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > already
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > based
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be
> > >> improved
> > >> >> > once
> > >> >> > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a
> > ton
> > >> of
> > >> >> > > > usability
> > >> >> > > > > > > > issues.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would
> > >> revise
> > >> >> the
> > >> >> > > > > > Hibernate
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > integration
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase.
> > Can't
> > >> >> say
> > >> >> > if
> > >> >> > > > it's
> > >> >> > > > > > > used
> > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > lot
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael
> > >> >> Pollind,
> > >> >> > > I'll
> > >> >> > > > > > loop
> > >> >> > > > > > > > you
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > long
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite
> > >> support
> > >> >> for
> > >> >> > > > > > Micornaut
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > Data
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came
> > across
> > >> >> some
> > >> >> > > > > > challenges.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > Just
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > watch
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming
> in
> > >> >> Ignite
> > >> >> > > 3.0.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon,
> > Aug
> > >> 31,
> > >> >> > 2020
> > >> >> > > > at
> > >> >> > > > > > 5:11
> > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi
> Denis,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> Generally
> > >> >> > > speaking, I
> > >> >> > > > > > > believe
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> addresses
> > >> the
> > >> >> > issue
> > >> >> > > > if
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > duplicate
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> because
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema
> > >> will be
> > >> >> > > > created
> > >> >> > > > > > for
> > >> >> > > > > > > a
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > cache,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > Basically,
> > >> the
> > >> >> > > schema
> > >> >> > > > > > will
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > define
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > whether
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> which
> > >> >> fields
> > >> >> > > are
> > >> >> > > > > > > included
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > case
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have
> must
> > >> be
> > >> >> > > > compliant
> > >> >> > > > > > with
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > this,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > so
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as
> > >> with a
> > >> >> > set
> > >> >> > > of
> > >> >> > > > > > > > records,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> However,
> > >> could
> > >> >> > you
> > >> >> > > > > please
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is
> there
> > a
> > >> use
> > >> >> > case
> > >> >> > > > for
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so
> > >> far)?
> > >> >> If
> > >> >> > so,
> > >> >> > > > > what
> > >> >> > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this?
> In
> > my
> > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I
> > >> missing
> > >> >> > > > something?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon,
> > Aug
> > >> >> 31,
> > >> >> > > 2020
> > >> >> > > > at
> > >> >> > > > > > > 2:08
> > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> dmagda@apache.org>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I
> would
> > >> >> propose
> > >> >> > > > > adding
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > another
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > point
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> related
> > >> to
> > >> >> the
> > >> >> > > ORM
> > >> >> > > > > > > > frameworks
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > such
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many
> > >> others.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >> Presently,
> > >> >> the
> > >> >> > > > > storage
> > >> >> > > > > > > > engine
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requires
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value
> > >> ones
> > >> >> that
> > >> >> > > > > > > complicate
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >> frameworks
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >> (especially
> > >> >> if
> > >> >> > a
> > >> >> > > > key
> > >> >> > > > > > > object
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > comprises
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found
> > >> here:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >>
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It
> will
> > >> be
> > >> >> nice
> > >> >> > > if
> > >> >> > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > new
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> single
> > >> >> entity
> > >> >> > > > object
> > >> >> > > > > > when
> > >> >> > > > > > > > it
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > comes
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> entity
> > >> into
> > >> >> a
> > >> >> > key
> > >> >> > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > value.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Just
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > want
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all
> the
> > >> >> > essential
> > >> >> > > > > > public
> > >> >> > > > > > > > APIs
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > single-entity
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > approach.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What
> do
> > >> you
> > >> >> > > think?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On
> Fri,
> > >> Aug
> > >> >> 28,
> > >> >> > > > 2020
> > >> >> > > > > at
> > >> >> > > > > > > > 3:50
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > PM
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > >> Igniters,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One
> > of
> > >> the
> > >> >> > big
> > >> >> > > > > > changes
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proposed
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > >> >> "schema-first
> > >> >> > > > > > > approach".
> > >> >> > > > > > > > To
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > add
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > started
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for
> > >> this
> > >> >> > > change:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > Please
> > >> >> take a
> > >> >> > > > look
> > >> >> > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > let
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > me
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > >> thoughts,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > >> >> suggestions,
> > >> >> > or
> > >> >> > > > > > > > objections.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> -Val
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best
> > regards,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan
> > Pavlukhin
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan
> Pavlukhin
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > --
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > --
> > >> >> > > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > --
> > >> >> > > > Best regards,
> > >> >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >
>


-- 
Best regards,
Andrey V. Mashenkov

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>]

Andrey,

What about corresponding async APIs, do we add them now or later?

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 8:11 PM Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Igniters.
>
> I've created a PR for Table access API [1].
> This is an initial version. So, any suggestions\objections are welcomed.
> Please, do not hesitate to write your comments and\or examples to the PR.
>
> Ignite-api module contains API classes, e.g. TableView classes as
> projections for a table for different purposes.
> Ignite-table contains dummy implementation and Example class explained how
> it is supposed to be used.
>
>
> Also, I'm still waiting for any feedback for Schema configuration public
> API PR [2].
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/33
> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:05 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > I've updated a PR regarding your feedback [1].
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:58 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Folks,
> >>
> >> I updated the IEP to contain the missing pieces; actually, most of the
> >> questions here were covered by the text. Please let me know if there is
> >> something still missing or unclear.
> >>
> >> чт, 31 дек. 2020 г. в 12:48, Alexey Goncharuk <
> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> >> >:
> >>
> >> > Mikhail and Igniters,
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for your comments. The questions are reasonable, though I think
> >> all
> >> > concerns are addressed by the IEP as Val mentioned. I will update the
> >> > document according to your questions in the following week or so, so
> we
> >> can
> >> > have a constructive discussion further.
> >> >
> >> > ср, 30 дек. 2020 г. в 11:45, Michael Cherkasov <
> >> > michael.cherkasov@gmail.com>:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi Val, Andrey,
> >> >>
> >> >> thank you for clarifying.
> >> >>
> >> >> I still have a few comments.
> >> >>
> >> >> 1. one table == one schema. KV vs SQL:
> >> >> Looks like all agreed that KV is just a special case of a regular
> table
> >> >> with (blob,blob) schema.
> >> >> I worry about the case when the user starts from KV case and later
> will
> >> >> try
> >> >> to expand it and try to leverage SQL for the existing KV table it
> >> won't be
> >> >> able to do so and will require to reload data. which isn't convenient
> >> and
> >> >> sometimes not even possible. Is it possible to extract a new field
> from
> >> >> (blob, blob) schema and apply index on it?
> >> >>
> >> >> 2. Could you please also list all ways of schema definition in the
> >> IEP? It
> >> >> significant change and I bet the main point of this IEP, everyone
> hates
> >> >> QueryEntities, they are difficult to manage and in general, it's very
> >> >> confusing to have a data model(schemas) and node/cluster
> configuration
> >> in
> >> >> one place.
> >> >>
> >> >> So there will be SchemaBuilder and SQL to define schemas, but Andrey
> >> also
> >> >> mentioned annotations.
> >> >>
> >> >> I personally against configuration via annotations, while it's
> >> convenient
> >> >> for development, it difficult to manage because different classes can
> >> be
> >> >> deployed on different clients/servers nodes and it can lead to
> >> >> unpredictable results.
> >> >>
> >> >> 3. IEP doesn't mention field type changes, only drop/add fields.
> Field
> >> >> type
> >> >> changes are extremely painful right now(if even possible), so it
> would
> >> be
> >> >> nice if some scenarios would be supported(like int8->int16, or
> >> >> int8->String).
> >> >>
> >> >> 4. got it, I thought IEP will have more details about the
> >> implementation.
> >> >> I've seen Andrey even sent benchmark results for a new serialization,
> >> will
> >> >> ping him about this.
> >> >>
> >> >> 5. Thanks for the clarification. I had a wrong understanding of
> strick
> >> >> mode.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> вт, 29 дек. 2020 г. в 19:32, Valentin Kulichenko <
> >> >> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Hi Mike,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks for providing your feedback. Please see my comments below.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I would also encourage you to go through the IEP-54 [1] - it has a
> >> lot
> >> >> of
> >> >> > detail on the topic.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > [1]
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> >> >> >
> >> >> > -Val
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:22 PM Michael Cherkasov <
> >> >> > michael.cherkasov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > Hi all,
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > I reviewed the mail thread and proposal page and I still don't
> >> fully
> >> >> > > understand what is going to be changed, I would really appreciate
> >> it
> >> >> if
> >> >> > you
> >> >> > > will answer a few questions:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > 1. Are you going to leave only one schema per cache? if so, will
> be
> >> >> there
> >> >> > > an option to have a table with arbitrary objects(pure KV case)?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > My opinion is that KV case should be natively supported. I think
> this
> >> >> still
> >> >> > needs to be thought over, my current view on this is that we should
> >> have
> >> >> > separate APIs for KV and more generic storages. KV storage can be
> >> >> > implemented as a "table" with two BLOB fields where we will store
> >> >> > serialized key-value pairs. That would imply deserialization on
> read,
> >> >> but I
> >> >> > believe this is OK for KV use cases. I'm happy to hear other ideas
> >> >> though
> >> >> > :)
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0 have to define schema?
> >> >> > SchemaBuilder
> >> >> > > and SQL only? Is there an option to put the schema definition to
> >> the
> >> >> > > configuration?(I really don't like this, I would prefer to have
> >> >> > > separate scripts to create schemas)
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > There will be no such thing as a static configuration in the first
> >> >> place.
> >> >> > Tables and schemas are created in runtime. Even if there is a file
> >> >> provided
> >> >> > on node startup, this file is only applied in the scope of the
> >> 'start'
> >> >> > operation. All configurations will be stored in a meta storage
> >> >> available to
> >> >> > all nodes, as opposed to individual files.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > 3. Is there a way to change field type? if yes, can it be done in
> >> >> > runtime?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Absolutely! IEP-54 has a whole section about schema evolution.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going to be re-worked too, is
> >> there
> >> >> any
> >> >> > > IEP for this?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > BinaryMarshaller as a tool for arbitrary object serialization will
> be
> >> >> gone,
> >> >> > but we will reuse a lot of its concept to implement an internal
> tuple
> >> >> > serialization mechanism. IEP-54 has the description of the proposed
> >> data
> >> >> > format.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > 5. I don't like automatic schema evaluation when a new field is
> >> added
> >> >> > > automatically on record put, so is there a way to prohibit this
> >> >> behavior?
> >> >> > >  I think all schema changes should be done only explicitly except
> >> >> initial
> >> >> > > schema creation.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The way I see it is that we should have two modes: schema-first and
> >> >> > schema-last. Schema-first means exactly what you've described -
> >> schemas
> >> >> are
> >> >> > defined and updated explicitly by the user. In the schema-last
> mode,
> >> >> > the user does not deal with schemas, as they are inferred from the
> >> data
> >> >> > inserted into tables. We should definitely not mix these modes - it
> >> has
> >> >> to
> >> >> > be one or another. And it probably makes sense to discuss which
> mode
> >> >> should
> >> >> > be the default one.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Thanks,
> >> >> > > Mike.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey Mashenkov <
> >> >> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> >> >> > > >:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > Hi, Igniters.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > We all know that the current QueryEntity API is not convenient
> >> and
> >> >> > needs
> >> >> > > to
> >> >> > > > be reworked.
> >> >> > > > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema configuration public
> API
> >> >> for
> >> >> > > > Ignite 3.0.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > New schema configuration uses Builder pattern, which looks more
> >> >> > > comfortable
> >> >> > > > to use.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package with the API itself,
> >> and
> >> >> a
> >> >> > > draft
> >> >> > > > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
> >> >> > > > and a test that demonstrates how the API could be used.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Please note:
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with static factory
> >> methods.
> >> >> > > > * The implementation is decoupled and can be easily extracted
> to
> >> >> > separate
> >> >> > > > module if we decide to do so.
> >> >> > > > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are missed, they will be
> >> added
> >> >> > > lately
> >> >> > > > in separate tickes.
> >> >> > > > * Index configuration extends marker interface that makes
> >> possible
> >> >> to
> >> >> > > > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
> >> >> > > > Hopfully, we could add a persistent geo-indices support in
> >> future.
> >> >> > > > * Supposedly, current table schema can be changed via
> >> builder-like
> >> >> > > > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See
> >> >> 'TableModificationBuilder'
> >> >> > > for
> >> >> > > > details.
> >> >> > > > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have 'toBuilder()' converter
> >> for
> >> >> that
> >> >> > > > purpose as it is a Schema Manager responsibility to create
> >> mutator
> >> >> > > objects
> >> >> > > > from the current schema,
> >> >> > > > but implementing the Schema manager is out of scope and will be
> >> >> > designed
> >> >> > > > within the next task.
> >> >> > > > * Interfaces implementations are out of scope. I did not intend
> >> to
> >> >> > merge
> >> >> > > > them right now, but for test/demostration purposes.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > It is NOT the final version and some may be changed before the
> >> first
> >> >> > > > release of course.
> >> >> > > > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed with this approach
> or
> >> >> some
> >> >> > > > issues should be resolved at first.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Any thoughts or objections?
> >> >> > > > Are interfaces good enough to be merged within the current
> >> ticket?
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <
> >> jury.gerzhedowich@gmail.com>
> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types:
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
> >> >> > > > > 2. It requires adding new types to the internal
> representation,
> >> >> > > protocol,
> >> >> > > > > e.t.c.
> >> >> > > > > 3. internal representation should be the same as we keep sign
> >> >> types.
> >> >> > So
> >> >> > > > it
> >> >> > > > > will not requires more memory
> >> >> > > > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such types for platforms
> >> >> which
> >> >> > not
> >> >> > > > > support unsigned types. For example, a user could derive -6
> >> value
> >> >> in
> >> >> > > Java
> >> >> > > > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits perspective will be
> >> >> right). I
> >> >> > > > think
> >> >> > > > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such cases, especially it
> >> >> will be
> >> >> > > bad
> >> >> > > > > for unsigned long when we require returns BigInteger type.
> >> >> > > > > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix for new types
> like
> >> a
> >> >> > > '250u' -
> >> >> > > > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
> >> >> > > > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive comparison logic
> for
> >> >> > indexes
> >> >> > > > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for expressions. I think
> it
> >> >> not
> >> >> > > > > possible for the current H2 engine and probably possible for
> >> the
> >> >> new
> >> >> > > > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from anybody who involved
> in
> >> >> this
> >> >> > > part
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > WDYT?
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey Goncharuk <
> >> >> > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> >> >> > > > > >:
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0: once we the
> >> actual
> >> >> > type
> >> >> > > > > > information, we can make proper runtime adjustments and
> >> >> conversions
> >> >> > > to
> >> >> > > > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will be just a bit more
> >> >> > > expensive.
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> >> >> ptupitsyn@apache.org
> >> >> > >:
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
> >> >> > > > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons and so on are
> >> >> broken
> >> >> > > > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned this
> somewhere
> >> >> > above.
> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document that SQL is not
> >> >> supported
> >> >> > on
> >> >> > > > > those
> >> >> > > > > > > types,
> >> >> > > > > > > end of story.
> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> >> >> > > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> >> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable request. I thought
> >> about
> >> >> > this
> >> >> > > > > when
> >> >> > > > > > I
> >> >> > > > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add these types
> >> right
> >> >> > > away.
> >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning
> with
> >> >> .NET
> >> >> > > and
> >> >> > > > > C++
> >> >> > > > > > :)
> >> >> > > > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually works as expected,
> it
> >> >> needs
> >> >> > > > some
> >> >> > > > > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns are false):
> >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > >    - It's true that equality check works properly, but
> >> for
> >> >> SQL
> >> >> > > > range
> >> >> > > > > > > >    queries it will break unless some special care is
> >> taken
> >> >> on
> >> >> > > Java
> >> >> > > > > > side:
> >> >> > > > > > > > for
> >> >> > > > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will be converted
> >> to
> >> >> -1,
> >> >> > > > which
> >> >> > > > > > will
> >> >> > > > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we don't have unsigned
> >> types
> >> >> > now,
> >> >> > > I
> >> >> > > > > > doubt
> >> >> > > > > > > it
> >> >> > > > > > > >    works.
> >> >> > > > > > > >    - There is an obvious cross-platform data loss when
> >> >> > > "intuitive"
> >> >> > > > > type
> >> >> > > > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8 corresponds to byte
> >> type in
> >> >> > > .NET,
> >> >> > > > > but
> >> >> > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have to use short
> type
> >> in
> >> >> > Java,
> >> >> > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> >> > > > > > > >    will also need to take care of the range check
> during
> >> >> > > > > > serialization).
> >> >> > > > > > > I
> >> >> > > > > > > >    think we can even allow to try to deserialize a
> value
> >> >> into
> >> >> > > > > arbitrary
> >> >> > > > > > > > type,
> >> >> > > > > > > >    but throw an exception if the range is out of
> bounds.
> >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
> >> >> > > > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once all the
> details
> >> >> are
> >> >> > > > settled
> >> >> > > > > > > here?
> >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey Mashenkov <
> >> >> > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> >> >> > > > > > > > >:
> >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't be treated
> >> >> correctly
> >> >> > > for
> >> >> > > > > now
> >> >> > > > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > I think we could make "true" support for unsigned
> >> types,
> >> >> but
> >> >> > > they
> >> >> > > > > > will
> >> >> > > > > > > > have
> >> >> > > > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map uint64 to Java
> >> long
> >> >> > > > > primitive,
> >> >> > > > > > > but
> >> >> > > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > BigInteger only.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64 to Java long,
> but
> >> >> treat
> >> >> > > > > negative
> >> >> > > > > > > > > values in a different way to preserve correct
> ordering.
> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > These limitations will affect only mixed environments
> >> when
> >> >> > .Net
> >> >> > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > Java
> >> >> > > > > > > > > used to access the data.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > Will this solution address your issues?
> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> >> >> > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning
> >> with
> >> >> > .NET
> >> >> > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > C++
> >> >> > > > > > > :)
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as cache keys and
> >> >> values,
> >> >> > as
> >> >> > > > > fields
> >> >> > > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > properties,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y clauses) - it
> >> >> works
> >> >> > > > > > > transparently
> >> >> > > > > > > > > for
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > the users.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats those values as
> >> >> > > > corresponding
> >> >> > > > > > > signed
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > types.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in some cases only
> >> >> because
> >> >> > > > there
> >> >> > > > > > are
> >> >> > > > > > > no
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very simple change to
> the
> >> >> > > protocol
> >> >> > > > -
> >> >> > > > > > add
> >> >> > > > > > > > type
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as signed
> >> >> counterparts.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise
> >> representation
> >> >> is
> >> >> > > the
> >> >> > > > > > same)
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a uByte field
> >> and
> >> >> map
> >> >> > it
> >> >> > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > 'uint8'
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > column.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to "250" and put the
> >> >> object
> >> >> > > > into a
> >> >> > > > > > > > table,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a single byte
> 'int8'
> >> >> > column.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it to directly
> >> the
> >> >> Java
> >> >> > > > > object
> >> >> > > > > > > > field
> >> >> > > > > > > > > of
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8 type to Java
> >> >> 'short'
> >> >> > > type
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > because the one expected to see "250" as a value
> >> which
> >> >> > > > doesn't
> >> >> > > > > > fit
> >> >> > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > signed type.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a BigInteger field in
> >> >> Java.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat column value as Java
> >> >> 'byte'
> >> >> > as
> >> >> > > > is,
> >> >> > > > > > > > because
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a negative value, so
> it
> >> >> should
> >> >> > > be
> >> >> > > > > cast
> >> >> > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > short
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger for uint64)
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will require a different
> >> >> > > comparator.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> >> >> > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a good idea.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the simple
> approach
> >> I
> >> >> > > > described?
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrey
> Mashenkov
> >> <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing range for
> unsigned
> >> >> types
> >> >> > > > then
> >> >> > > > > we
> >> >> > > > > > > > could
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > add a
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on schema level
> >> >> (like
> >> >> > > > > > nullability
> >> >> > > > > > > > > flag)
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types in storage.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate storage
> >> type-system
> >> >> and
> >> >> > > > binary
> >> >> > > > > > > > > protocol
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of type will match
> 1
> >> to
> >> >> 1
> >> >> > > with
> >> >> > > > > > > storage
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (native)
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either have a separate
> >> type
> >> >> id
> >> >> > or
> >> >> > > > > treat
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > serialized
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed or unsigned
> >> >> flag).
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever foresee the
> >> >> consequences
> >> >> > of
> >> >> > > > > using
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > types.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned types
> perfectly
> >> >> works
> >> >> > > > with
> >> >> > > > > > some
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > database,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite successor
> confession
> >> >> with
> >> >> > our
> >> >> > > > > > > "native"
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he can use the power
> >> of
> >> >> > Ignite
> >> >> > > > > > Compute
> >> >> > > > > > > > on
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either fail to use his
> >> >> > unsigned
> >> >> > > > data
> >> >> > > > > > on
> >> >> > > > > > > > Java
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > due
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due to natural Java
> >> type
> >> >> > system
> >> >> > > > > > > > limitations
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > e.g.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively supported types with
> >> >> possible
> >> >> > > > value
> >> >> > > > > > > > ranges
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is what trade-off we
> >> found
> >> >> > > > > acceptable:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > narrowing
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use types of wider
> >> range on
> >> >> > > > systems
> >> >> > > > > > like
> >> >> > > > > > > > > Java.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor Sapego <
> >> >> > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so hard to
> >> implement
> >> >> > > > > comparison
> >> >> > > > > > > of
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not seem to
> be a
> >> >> big
> >> >> > > issue
> >> >> > > > > > from
> >> >> > > > > > > my
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned types from
> Java
> >> - I
> >> >> > > think,
> >> >> > > > > if
> >> >> > > > > > a
> >> >> > > > > > > > user
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > uses
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to interact with
> it
> >> >> from
> >> >> > > Java
> >> >> > > > he
> >> >> > > > > > > knows
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > what
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > he
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from platforms
> where
> >> >> they
> >> >> > > have
> >> >> > > > > > native
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > support
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > widely
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where users
> >> currently
> >> >> > have
> >> >> > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > make a
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > manual
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > casting
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using unsigned types when
> >> they
> >> >> > use
> >> >> > > > > > Ignite.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM Pavel
> >> Tupitsyn <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for those types
> >> >> > (basically,
> >> >> > > > just
> >> >> > > > > > add
> >> >> > > > > > > > > more
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise
> >> >> > > representation
> >> >> > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > same)
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned integers,
> >> so
> >> >> we
> >> >> > can
> >> >> > > > > > simply
> >> >> > > > > > > > say
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative comparison is not
> >> >> > supported
> >> >> > > > in
> >> >> > > > > > SQL
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (equality
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM Andrey
> >> >> Mashenkov
> >> >> > <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have i8 or int8
> >> >> instead of
> >> >> > > > > > Integer.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't address the
> issue.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types should be
> portable
> >> >> > across
> >> >> > > > > > > different
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > systems
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type support.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is that unsigned
> >> types
> >> >> > cover
> >> >> > > > > > > different
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > ranges.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to introduce a
> >> uLong.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big deal to add
> >> uLong
> >> >> > type
> >> >> > > > > > support
> >> >> > > > > > > > at
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > storage
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and then use it
> >> in
> >> >> e.g.
> >> >> > > > .Net
> >> >> > > > > > > only.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support it in e.g.
> Java?
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range is about
> >> >> (2^-63
> >> >> > ..
> >> >> > > > > 2^63)
> >> >> > > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > uLong
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > range
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to restrict
> range
> >> to
> >> >> (0
> >> >> > ..
> >> >> > > > > > 2^63).
> >> >> > > > > > > > This
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but doesn't
> look
> >> >> like
> >> >> > a
> >> >> > > > > 'real'
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uLong
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse when the user
> >> will
> >> >> use
> >> >> > > > > uByte,
> >> >> > > > > > as
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > limitation
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map unsigned
> >> types
> >> >> to a
> >> >> > > > type
> >> >> > > > > of
> >> >> > > > > > > > wider
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative values. E.g.
> >> >> uLong to
> >> >> > > > > > > BigInteger.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive Java type
> for
> >> >> Long
> >> >> > > here.
> >> >> > > > > > > > However,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > still
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8 bytes, but
> >> >> have a
> >> >> > > > > special
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > comparator
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid unwanted
> >> >> > deserialization.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Pavel
> >> >> Tupitsyn
> >> >> > <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of "long, short,
> >> >> byte"
> >> >> > in
> >> >> > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > protocol
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style, which is
> concise
> >> >> and
> >> >> > > > > > > unambiguous:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM Igor
> >> >> Sapego <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support that. Also, if we
> >> are
> >> >> > > aiming
> >> >> > > > > for
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger platform-independance,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may want to
> support
> >> >> > > > > bit-notation
> >> >> > > > > > > > > (int32,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a different type on
> >> >> > different
> >> >> > > > > > > platforms
> >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often when using ODBC
> >> for
> >> >> > > > example).
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM
> Pavel
> >> >> > > Tupitsyn
> >> >> > > > <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should support
> unsigned
> >> >> data
> >> >> > > > types:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have them, but many
> >> >> other
> >> >> > > > > languages
> >> >> > > > > > > do,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing number of
> thin
> >> >> > clients
> >> >> > > > > this
> >> >> > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > important.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in current
> Ignite.NET
> >> >> > > > > implementation
> >> >> > > > > > > we
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > store
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain when it
> >> comes
> >> >> to
> >> >> > > > > > metadata,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > binary
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to deserialize int as
> >> uint
> >> >> > when
> >> >> > > > you
> >> >> > > > > > > have
> >> >> > > > > > > > a
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > class,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM
> >> >> Andrey
> >> >> > > > > > Mashenkov <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both serializers
> use
> >> >> > > reflection
> >> >> > > > > > API.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will allow users to
> >> >> > configure
> >> >> > > > > > static
> >> >> > > > > > > > > schema
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > along
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still need to
> >> >> validate
> >> >> > > user
> >> >> > > > > > > classes
> >> >> > > > > > > > > on
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > client
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in the grid
> >> and
> >> >> > > > reflection
> >> >> > > > > > API
> >> >> > > > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > only
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few articles on
> >> the
> >> >> > > internet
> >> >> > > > > on
> >> >> > > > > > > how
> >> >> > > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > enable
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task for
> supporting
> >> >> > > GraalVM,
> >> >> > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > maybe
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > someone
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM will
> >> suggest a
> >> >> > > > solution
> >> >> > > > > > or
> >> >> > > > > > > a
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > proper
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is found, we
> >> could
> >> >> > allow
> >> >> > > > > users
> >> >> > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > write
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > own
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I don't think
> it
> >> is
> >> >> a
> >> >> > > good
> >> >> > > > > idea
> >> >> > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > expose
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > any
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the public.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM
> >> >> Denis
> >> >> > > > Magda <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the
> update,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the serializers
> >> take
> >> >> into
> >> >> > > > > > > > consideration
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native-image-generation
> >> feature of
> >> >> > > > GraalVM?
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current binary
> >> >> marshaller,
> >> >> > we
> >> >> > > > > can't
> >> >> > > > > > > even
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > generate
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using our thin
> >> client
> >> >> > > APIs.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39
> AM
> >> >> > Andrey
> >> >> > > > > > > Mashenkov
> >> >> > > > > > > > <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to continue
> >> discussion
> >> >> of
> >> >> > > > IEP-54
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who is
> >> interested
> >> >> > had a
> >> >> > > > > > chance
> >> >> > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > get
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to
> >> ask
> >> >> > > > questions
> >> >> > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > share
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > your
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a prototype
> of
> >> >> > > serializer
> >> >> > > > > [2]
> >> >> > > > > > > for
> >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > data
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I compared 2
> >> >> approaches
> >> >> > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > (de)serialize
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java reflection/unsafe
> >> API
> >> >> and
> >> >> > > > > similar
> >> >> > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > one
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > we
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second one
> generates
> >> >> > > serializer
> >> >> > > > > for
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > particular
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > user
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library for
> >> compilation.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows better
> >> results
> >> >> in
> >> >> > > > > > > benchmarks.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go with it
> as
> >> >> > default
> >> >> > > > > > > serializer
> >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation as a
> fallback
> >> if
> >> >> > > someone
> >> >> > > > > > will
> >> >> > > > > > > > have
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > issues
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of tasks
> >> >> under
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > > > > > > umbrella
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > ticket
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to create
> more
> >> >> > tickets
> >> >> > > > for
> >> >> > > > > > > > schema
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > manager
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation, but would
> >> like
> >> >> to
> >> >> > > > clarify
> >> >> > > > > > > some
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > details.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought schemaManager on
> >> each
> >> >> > node
> >> >> > > > > should
> >> >> > > > > > > > held:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping of
> "schema
> >> >> > > version"
> >> >> > > > > <-->
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > validated
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > local
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide schema
> >> changes
> >> >> > > > history.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client side. Before
> >> any
> >> >> > > > key-value
> >> >> > > > > > API
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > operation
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a given
> key-value
> >> >> pair.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no
> local-mapping
> >> >> exists
> >> >> > > > for a
> >> >> > > > > > > given
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema has a
> >> more
> >> >> > recent
> >> >> > > > > > version
> >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be validated against
> >> the
> >> >> > > latest
> >> >> > > > > > > version
> >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > local
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object doesn't fit to
> >> the
> >> >> > > latest
> >> >> > > > > > schema
> >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > it
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > depends
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail the
> >> operation
> >> >> > > > ('strict'
> >> >> > > > > > > mode)
> >> >> > > > > > > > > or
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > a
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > new
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a new schema
> >> version
> >> >> > > should
> >> >> > > > > be
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > propagated
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server side we
> usually
> >> >> have
> >> >> > no
> >> >> > > > > > > key-value
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > classes
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change history is
> >> >> > available
> >> >> > > > > and a
> >> >> > > > > > > > tuple
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > has
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to upgrade
> any
> >> >> > > received
> >> >> > > > > > tuple
> >> >> > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > last
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow nodes
> to
> >> >> send
> >> >> > > > > key-value
> >> >> > > > > > > > pairs
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > of
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't receive a
> schema
> >> >> update
> >> >> > > > yet)
> >> >> > > > > > > > without
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > reverting
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node with newer
> >> >> classes.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you
> mean
> >> the
> >> >> > > same?
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at
> 9:21
> >> AM
> >> >> > Ivan
> >> >> > > > > > > Pavlukhin
> >> >> > > > > > > > <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not ignore
> >> history.
> >> >> We
> >> >> > > had
> >> >> > > > a
> >> >> > > > > > > thread
> >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > many
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can resume it.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08
> GMT+03:00,
> >> >> Denis
> >> >> > > > Magda
> >> >> > > > > <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense,
> thanks
> >> for
> >> >> > > > > > explaining.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we need to
> >> have a
> >> >> > > > separate
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > discussion
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms
> >> substitution.
> >> >> > I'll
> >> >> > > > > > > appreciate
> >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > if
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > you
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing pointers to any
> >> >> > relevant
> >> >> > > > IEPs
> >> >> > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > reasoning
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at
> >> 6:01
> >> >> PM
> >> >> > > > > Valentin
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> >> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the wording in
> >> the
> >> >> IEP
> >> >> > > is
> >> >> > > > a
> >> >> > > > > > > little
> >> >> > > > > > > > > bit
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you should not
> >> create
> >> >> > > nested
> >> >> > > > > > POJOs,
> >> >> > > > > > > > but
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > rather
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO that is
> >> mapped
> >> >> to
> >> >> > a
> >> >> > > > > > > particular
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not
> supported.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this correct?
> >> >> Please
> >> >> > > let
> >> >> > > > me
> >> >> > > > > > > know
> >> >> > > > > > > > if
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > I'm
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > missing
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the "cache"
> >> term, I
> >> >> > agree
> >> >> > > > > that
> >> >> > > > > > it
> >> >> > > > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can replace it
> >> >> with.
> >> >> > > > "Table"
> >> >> > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > tightly
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional in our
> >> >> case.
> >> >> > Do
> >> >> > > > you
> >> >> > > > > > want
> >> >> > > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > create a
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at
> >> >> 4:37 PM
> >> >> > > > Denis
> >> >> > > > > > > > Magda <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked the IEP
> >> again
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > > > > have a
> >> >> > > > > > > few
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > questions.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested
> >> objects
> >> >> and
> >> >> > > > > > > collections
> >> >> > > > > > > > > are
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > not
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should
> >> >> either
> >> >> > be
> >> >> > > > > > inlined
> >> >> > > > > > > > > into
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you provide a
> DDL
> >> >> code
> >> >> > > > > snippet
> >> >> > > > > > > > > showing
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > how
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to work?
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep using
> the
> >> >> terms
> >> >> > > > > "cache"
> >> >> > > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right time to
> >> discuss
> >> >> an
> >> >> > > > > > alternate
> >> >> > > > > > > > name
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the
> "table"
> >> >> > should
> >> >> > > > stay
> >> >> > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one of
> the
> >> >> > primary
> >> >> > > > APIs
> >> >> > > > > > in
> >> >> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020
> at
> >> >> 12:26
> >> >> > PM
> >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> >> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your point. I
> >> >> agree
> >> >> > > that
> >> >> > > > > with
> >> >> > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > automatic
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last
> >> territory.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we
> >> support
> >> >> > > > automatic
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > evolution,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a cache
> >> without
> >> >> > > schema
> >> >> > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > inferring
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other words, we can
> >> have
> >> >> > both
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you
> >> >> think?
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020
> >> at
> >> >> 5:59
> >> >> > > AM
> >> >> > > > > > Alexey
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> >> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got
> >> your
> >> >> > > concern
> >> >> > > > > > now.
> >> >> > > > > > > As
> >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > terminology, I am
> >> >> > > absolutely
> >> >> > > > > fine
> >> >> > > > > > > > with
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the approach
> best.
> >> >> > Dynamic
> >> >> > > or
> >> >> > > > > > > > evolving
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > corresponding
> >> changes
> >> >> to
> >> >> > > the
> >> >> > > > > IEP
> >> >> > > > > > > once
> >> >> > > > > > > > > we
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > settle
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020
> >> г. в
> >> >> > > 11:33,
> >> >> > > > > Ivan
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for
> >> your
> >> >> > > answer!
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My
> understanding
> >> is
> >> >> a
> >> >> > > > little
> >> >> > > > > > bit
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > different.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > definitely
> >> should be
> >> >> > > > > possible.
> >> >> > > > > > > But
> >> >> > > > > > > > I
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > see
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > a
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > main
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is
> >> updated".
> >> >> I
> >> >> > > > treat a
> >> >> > > > > > > > common
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > SQL
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data
> >> >> manipulation
> >> >> > > > > > operations
> >> >> > > > > > > > are
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > clearly
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > interesting
> >> >> > capabilities,
> >> >> > > > > e.g.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > preventing
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data
> >> >> > operations,
> >> >> > > > > > > > restricting
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > user
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first
> >> means
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > > > > > schema
> >> >> > > > > > > > > exists
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > in
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is compliant
> with
> >> >> it -
> >> >> > > > that's
> >> >> > > > > > > > exactly
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > what
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last
> >> >> approach
> >> >> > > > > > mentioned
> >> >> > > > > > > in
> >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > also
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but it
> is
> >> >> > > inferred
> >> >> > > > > from
> >> >> > > > > > > > data.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > Is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing
> >> approach?
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would
> like
> >> to
> >> >> > say,
> >> >> > > > that
> >> >> > > > > > my
> >> >> > > > > > > > main
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > concern
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > terminology.
> And
> >> I
> >> >> > > suppose
> >> >> > > > if
> >> >> > > > > > it
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > confuses
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > me
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused as
> >> well. My
> >> >> > > > feeling
> >> >> > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > closer
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving
> schema".
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >>
> >> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47
> >> >> > > GMT+03:00,
> >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >> > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> >> >> > > > > > >:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see
> an
> >> >> issue
> >> >> > > with
> >> >> > > > > > that.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance and
> all
> >> >> the
> >> >> > > > stored
> >> >> > > > > > data
> >> >> > > > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > compliant
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is proposed.
> >> There
> >> >> > are
> >> >> > > no
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > restrictions
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep
> 5,
> >> >> 2020
> >> >> > at
> >> >> > > > 9:52
> >> >> > > > > > PM
> >> >> > > > > > > > Ivan
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> vololo100@gmail.com>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a
> little
> >> bit
> >> >> > > > confused
> >> >> > > > > > > with
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey
> >> [1]
> >> >> (see
> >> >> > > > part
> >> >> > > > > X
> >> >> > > > > > > Semi
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Structured
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic
> >> >> schema"
> >> >> > > > > approach
> >> >> > > > > > > as a
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > kind
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > of
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >>
> >> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02
> >> 1:53
> >> >> > > > GMT+03:00,
> >> >> > > > > > > Denis
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However,
> >> could
> >> >> > you
> >> >> > > > > please
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there
> a
> >> use
> >> >> > case
> >> >> > > > for
> >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so
> >> far)?
> >> >> If
> >> >> > so,
> >> >> > > > > what
> >> >> > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In
> my
> >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> >> >> > > > > > > > all
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I
> >> missing
> >> >> > > > something?
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good
> point,
> >> >> yes,
> >> >> > if
> >> >> > > > all
> >> >> > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > ORM
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> internally,
> >> >> then
> >> >> > > they
> >> >> > > > > can
> >> >> > > > > > > > easily
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > translate
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> INSERT/UPDATE
> >> >> > > > statement
> >> >> > > > > > that
> >> >> > > > > > > > > lists
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > all
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring
> Data
> >> >> > > > integration
> >> >> > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > already
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > based
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be
> >> improved
> >> >> > once
> >> >> > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a
> ton
> >> of
> >> >> > > > usability
> >> >> > > > > > > > issues.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would
> >> revise
> >> >> the
> >> >> > > > > > Hibernate
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > integration
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase.
> Can't
> >> >> say
> >> >> > if
> >> >> > > > it's
> >> >> > > > > > > used
> >> >> > > > > > > > a
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > lot
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael
> >> >> Pollind,
> >> >> > > I'll
> >> >> > > > > > loop
> >> >> > > > > > > > you
> >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > long
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite
> >> support
> >> >> for
> >> >> > > > > > Micornaut
> >> >> > > > > > > > > Data
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came
> across
> >> >> some
> >> >> > > > > > challenges.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > Just
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > watch
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in
> >> >> Ignite
> >> >> > > 3.0.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon,
> Aug
> >> 31,
> >> >> > 2020
> >> >> > > > at
> >> >> > > > > > 5:11
> >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally
> >> >> > > speaking, I
> >> >> > > > > > > believe
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses
> >> the
> >> >> > issue
> >> >> > > > if
> >> >> > > > > > > > > duplicate
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> because
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema
> >> will be
> >> >> > > > created
> >> >> > > > > > for
> >> >> > > > > > > a
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > cache,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> Basically,
> >> the
> >> >> > > schema
> >> >> > > > > > will
> >> >> > > > > > > > > define
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > whether
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which
> >> >> fields
> >> >> > > are
> >> >> > > > > > > included
> >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > case
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must
> >> be
> >> >> > > > compliant
> >> >> > > > > > with
> >> >> > > > > > > > > this,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > so
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as
> >> with a
> >> >> > set
> >> >> > > of
> >> >> > > > > > > > records,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > rather
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However,
> >> could
> >> >> > you
> >> >> > > > > please
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there
> a
> >> use
> >> >> > case
> >> >> > > > for
> >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so
> >> far)?
> >> >> If
> >> >> > so,
> >> >> > > > > what
> >> >> > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In
> my
> >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> >> >> > > > > > > > all
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I
> >> missing
> >> >> > > > something?
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon,
> Aug
> >> >> 31,
> >> >> > > 2020
> >> >> > > > at
> >> >> > > > > > > 2:08
> >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> dmagda@apache.org>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would
> >> >> propose
> >> >> > > > > adding
> >> >> > > > > > > > > another
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > point
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related
> >> to
> >> >> the
> >> >> > > ORM
> >> >> > > > > > > > frameworks
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > such
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many
> >> others.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> Presently,
> >> >> the
> >> >> > > > > storage
> >> >> > > > > > > > engine
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requires
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value
> >> ones
> >> >> that
> >> >> > > > > > > complicate
> >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> frameworks
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> (especially
> >> >> if
> >> >> > a
> >> >> > > > key
> >> >> > > > > > > object
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > comprises
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found
> >> here:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will
> >> be
> >> >> nice
> >> >> > > if
> >> >> > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > new
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single
> >> >> entity
> >> >> > > > object
> >> >> > > > > > when
> >> >> > > > > > > > it
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > comes
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity
> >> into
> >> >> a
> >> >> > key
> >> >> > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > value.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > Just
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > want
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the
> >> >> > essential
> >> >> > > > > > public
> >> >> > > > > > > > APIs
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > single-entity
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> approach.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do
> >> you
> >> >> > > think?
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri,
> >> Aug
> >> >> 28,
> >> >> > > > 2020
> >> >> > > > > at
> >> >> > > > > > > > 3:50
> >> >> > > > > > > > > PM
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >> Igniters,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One
> of
> >> the
> >> >> > big
> >> >> > > > > > changes
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > proposed
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >> >> "schema-first
> >> >> > > > > > > approach".
> >> >> > > > > > > > To
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > add
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> started
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for
> >> this
> >> >> > > change:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> Please
> >> >> take a
> >> >> > > > look
> >> >> > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > let
> >> >> > > > > > > > > me
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > know
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >> thoughts,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >> >> suggestions,
> >> >> > or
> >> >> > > > > > > > objections.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best
> regards,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan
> Pavlukhin
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > --
> >> >> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > --
> >> >> > > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > --
> >> >> > > > Best regards,
> >> >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>]

Hi Igniters.

I've created a PR for Table access API [1].
This is an initial version. So, any suggestions\objections are welcomed.
Please, do not hesitate to write your comments and\or examples to the PR.

Ignite-api module contains API classes, e.g. TableView classes as
projections for a table for different purposes.
Ignite-table contains dummy implementation and Example class explained how
it is supposed to be used.


Also, I'm still waiting for any feedback for Schema configuration public
API PR [2].

[1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/33
[2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2

On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:05 PM Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> I've updated a PR regarding your feedback [1].
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:58 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> I updated the IEP to contain the missing pieces; actually, most of the
>> questions here were covered by the text. Please let me know if there is
>> something still missing or unclear.
>>
>> чт, 31 дек. 2020 г. в 12:48, Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
>> >:
>>
>> > Mikhail and Igniters,
>> >
>> > Thanks for your comments. The questions are reasonable, though I think
>> all
>> > concerns are addressed by the IEP as Val mentioned. I will update the
>> > document according to your questions in the following week or so, so we
>> can
>> > have a constructive discussion further.
>> >
>> > ср, 30 дек. 2020 г. в 11:45, Michael Cherkasov <
>> > michael.cherkasov@gmail.com>:
>> >
>> >> Hi Val, Andrey,
>> >>
>> >> thank you for clarifying.
>> >>
>> >> I still have a few comments.
>> >>
>> >> 1. one table == one schema. KV vs SQL:
>> >> Looks like all agreed that KV is just a special case of a regular table
>> >> with (blob,blob) schema.
>> >> I worry about the case when the user starts from KV case and later will
>> >> try
>> >> to expand it and try to leverage SQL for the existing KV table it
>> won't be
>> >> able to do so and will require to reload data. which isn't convenient
>> and
>> >> sometimes not even possible. Is it possible to extract a new field from
>> >> (blob, blob) schema and apply index on it?
>> >>
>> >> 2. Could you please also list all ways of schema definition in the
>> IEP? It
>> >> significant change and I bet the main point of this IEP, everyone hates
>> >> QueryEntities, they are difficult to manage and in general, it's very
>> >> confusing to have a data model(schemas) and node/cluster configuration
>> in
>> >> one place.
>> >>
>> >> So there will be SchemaBuilder and SQL to define schemas, but Andrey
>> also
>> >> mentioned annotations.
>> >>
>> >> I personally against configuration via annotations, while it's
>> convenient
>> >> for development, it difficult to manage because different classes can
>> be
>> >> deployed on different clients/servers nodes and it can lead to
>> >> unpredictable results.
>> >>
>> >> 3. IEP doesn't mention field type changes, only drop/add fields. Field
>> >> type
>> >> changes are extremely painful right now(if even possible), so it would
>> be
>> >> nice if some scenarios would be supported(like int8->int16, or
>> >> int8->String).
>> >>
>> >> 4. got it, I thought IEP will have more details about the
>> implementation.
>> >> I've seen Andrey even sent benchmark results for a new serialization,
>> will
>> >> ping him about this.
>> >>
>> >> 5. Thanks for the clarification. I had a wrong understanding of strick
>> >> mode.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> вт, 29 дек. 2020 г. в 19:32, Valentin Kulichenko <
>> >> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
>> >>
>> >> > Hi Mike,
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks for providing your feedback. Please see my comments below.
>> >> >
>> >> > I would also encourage you to go through the IEP-54 [1] - it has a
>> lot
>> >> of
>> >> > detail on the topic.
>> >> >
>> >> > [1]
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
>> >> >
>> >> > -Val
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:22 PM Michael Cherkasov <
>> >> > michael.cherkasov@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Hi all,
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I reviewed the mail thread and proposal page and I still don't
>> fully
>> >> > > understand what is going to be changed, I would really appreciate
>> it
>> >> if
>> >> > you
>> >> > > will answer a few questions:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > 1. Are you going to leave only one schema per cache? if so, will be
>> >> there
>> >> > > an option to have a table with arbitrary objects(pure KV case)?
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > My opinion is that KV case should be natively supported. I think this
>> >> still
>> >> > needs to be thought over, my current view on this is that we should
>> have
>> >> > separate APIs for KV and more generic storages. KV storage can be
>> >> > implemented as a "table" with two BLOB fields where we will store
>> >> > serialized key-value pairs. That would imply deserialization on read,
>> >> but I
>> >> > believe this is OK for KV use cases. I'm happy to hear other ideas
>> >> though
>> >> > :)
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > > 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0 have to define schema?
>> >> > SchemaBuilder
>> >> > > and SQL only? Is there an option to put the schema definition to
>> the
>> >> > > configuration?(I really don't like this, I would prefer to have
>> >> > > separate scripts to create schemas)
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > There will be no such thing as a static configuration in the first
>> >> place.
>> >> > Tables and schemas are created in runtime. Even if there is a file
>> >> provided
>> >> > on node startup, this file is only applied in the scope of the
>> 'start'
>> >> > operation. All configurations will be stored in a meta storage
>> >> available to
>> >> > all nodes, as opposed to individual files.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > > 3. Is there a way to change field type? if yes, can it be done in
>> >> > runtime?
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > Absolutely! IEP-54 has a whole section about schema evolution.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > > 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going to be re-worked too, is
>> there
>> >> any
>> >> > > IEP for this?
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > BinaryMarshaller as a tool for arbitrary object serialization will be
>> >> gone,
>> >> > but we will reuse a lot of its concept to implement an internal tuple
>> >> > serialization mechanism. IEP-54 has the description of the proposed
>> data
>> >> > format.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > > 5. I don't like automatic schema evaluation when a new field is
>> added
>> >> > > automatically on record put, so is there a way to prohibit this
>> >> behavior?
>> >> > >  I think all schema changes should be done only explicitly except
>> >> initial
>> >> > > schema creation.
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > The way I see it is that we should have two modes: schema-first and
>> >> > schema-last. Schema-first means exactly what you've described -
>> schemas
>> >> are
>> >> > defined and updated explicitly by the user. In the schema-last mode,
>> >> > the user does not deal with schemas, as they are inferred from the
>> data
>> >> > inserted into tables. We should definitely not mix these modes - it
>> has
>> >> to
>> >> > be one or another. And it probably makes sense to discuss which mode
>> >> should
>> >> > be the default one.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Thanks,
>> >> > > Mike.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey Mashenkov <
>> >> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
>> >> > > >:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > Hi, Igniters.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > We all know that the current QueryEntity API is not convenient
>> and
>> >> > needs
>> >> > > to
>> >> > > > be reworked.
>> >> > > > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema configuration public API
>> >> for
>> >> > > > Ignite 3.0.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > New schema configuration uses Builder pattern, which looks more
>> >> > > comfortable
>> >> > > > to use.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package with the API itself,
>> and
>> >> a
>> >> > > draft
>> >> > > > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
>> >> > > > and a test that demonstrates how the API could be used.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Please note:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with static factory
>> methods.
>> >> > > > * The implementation is decoupled and can be easily extracted to
>> >> > separate
>> >> > > > module if we decide to do so.
>> >> > > > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are missed, they will be
>> added
>> >> > > lately
>> >> > > > in separate tickes.
>> >> > > > * Index configuration extends marker interface that makes
>> possible
>> >> to
>> >> > > > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
>> >> > > > Hopfully, we could add a persistent geo-indices support in
>> future.
>> >> > > > * Supposedly, current table schema can be changed via
>> builder-like
>> >> > > > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See
>> >> 'TableModificationBuilder'
>> >> > > for
>> >> > > > details.
>> >> > > > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have 'toBuilder()' converter
>> for
>> >> that
>> >> > > > purpose as it is a Schema Manager responsibility to create
>> mutator
>> >> > > objects
>> >> > > > from the current schema,
>> >> > > > but implementing the Schema manager is out of scope and will be
>> >> > designed
>> >> > > > within the next task.
>> >> > > > * Interfaces implementations are out of scope. I did not intend
>> to
>> >> > merge
>> >> > > > them right now, but for test/demostration purposes.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > It is NOT the final version and some may be changed before the
>> first
>> >> > > > release of course.
>> >> > > > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed with this approach or
>> >> some
>> >> > > > issues should be resolved at first.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Any thoughts or objections?
>> >> > > > Are interfaces good enough to be merged within the current
>> ticket?
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <
>> jury.gerzhedowich@gmail.com>
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types:
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
>> >> > > > > 2. It requires adding new types to the internal representation,
>> >> > > protocol,
>> >> > > > > e.t.c.
>> >> > > > > 3. internal representation should be the same as we keep sign
>> >> types.
>> >> > So
>> >> > > > it
>> >> > > > > will not requires more memory
>> >> > > > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such types for platforms
>> >> which
>> >> > not
>> >> > > > > support unsigned types. For example, a user could derive -6
>> value
>> >> in
>> >> > > Java
>> >> > > > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits perspective will be
>> >> right). I
>> >> > > > think
>> >> > > > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such cases, especially it
>> >> will be
>> >> > > bad
>> >> > > > > for unsigned long when we require returns BigInteger type.
>> >> > > > > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix for new types like
>> a
>> >> > > '250u' -
>> >> > > > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
>> >> > > > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive comparison logic for
>> >> > indexes
>> >> > > > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for expressions. I think it
>> >> not
>> >> > > > > possible for the current H2 engine and probably possible for
>> the
>> >> new
>> >> > > > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from anybody who involved in
>> >> this
>> >> > > part
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > WDYT?
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey Goncharuk <
>> >> > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
>> >> > > > > >:
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0: once we the
>> actual
>> >> > type
>> >> > > > > > information, we can make proper runtime adjustments and
>> >> conversions
>> >> > > to
>> >> > > > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will be just a bit more
>> >> > > expensive.
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <
>> >> ptupitsyn@apache.org
>> >> > >:
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
>> >> > > > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons and so on are
>> >> broken
>> >> > > > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned this somewhere
>> >> > above.
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document that SQL is not
>> >> supported
>> >> > on
>> >> > > > > those
>> >> > > > > > > types,
>> >> > > > > > > end of story.
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
>> >> > > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
>> >> > > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable request. I thought
>> about
>> >> > this
>> >> > > > > when
>> >> > > > > > I
>> >> > > > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add these types
>> right
>> >> > > away.
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with
>> >> .NET
>> >> > > and
>> >> > > > > C++
>> >> > > > > > :)
>> >> > > > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually works as expected, it
>> >> needs
>> >> > > > some
>> >> > > > > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns are false):
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > >    - It's true that equality check works properly, but
>> for
>> >> SQL
>> >> > > > range
>> >> > > > > > > >    queries it will break unless some special care is
>> taken
>> >> on
>> >> > > Java
>> >> > > > > > side:
>> >> > > > > > > > for
>> >> > > > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will be converted
>> to
>> >> -1,
>> >> > > > which
>> >> > > > > > will
>> >> > > > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we don't have unsigned
>> types
>> >> > now,
>> >> > > I
>> >> > > > > > doubt
>> >> > > > > > > it
>> >> > > > > > > >    works.
>> >> > > > > > > >    - There is an obvious cross-platform data loss when
>> >> > > "intuitive"
>> >> > > > > type
>> >> > > > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8 corresponds to byte
>> type in
>> >> > > .NET,
>> >> > > > > but
>> >> > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have to use short type
>> in
>> >> > Java,
>> >> > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > Ignite
>> >> > > > > > > >    will also need to take care of the range check during
>> >> > > > > > serialization).
>> >> > > > > > > I
>> >> > > > > > > >    think we can even allow to try to deserialize a value
>> >> into
>> >> > > > > arbitrary
>> >> > > > > > > > type,
>> >> > > > > > > >    but throw an exception if the range is out of bounds.
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
>> >> > > > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once all the details
>> >> are
>> >> > > > settled
>> >> > > > > > > here?
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey Mashenkov <
>> >> > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
>> >> > > > > > > > >:
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't be treated
>> >> correctly
>> >> > > for
>> >> > > > > now
>> >> > > > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > I think we could make "true" support for unsigned
>> types,
>> >> but
>> >> > > they
>> >> > > > > > will
>> >> > > > > > > > have
>> >> > > > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
>> >> > > > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map uint64 to Java
>> long
>> >> > > > > primitive,
>> >> > > > > > > but
>> >> > > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > BigInteger only.
>> >> > > > > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64 to Java long, but
>> >> treat
>> >> > > > > negative
>> >> > > > > > > > > values in a different way to preserve correct ordering.
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > These limitations will affect only mixed environments
>> when
>> >> > .Net
>> >> > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > Java
>> >> > > > > > > > > used to access the data.
>> >> > > > > > > > > Will this solution address your issues?
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
>> >> > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
>> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning
>> with
>> >> > .NET
>> >> > > > and
>> >> > > > > > C++
>> >> > > > > > > :)
>> >> > > > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as cache keys and
>> >> values,
>> >> > as
>> >> > > > > fields
>> >> > > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > properties,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y clauses) - it
>> >> works
>> >> > > > > > > transparently
>> >> > > > > > > > > for
>> >> > > > > > > > > > the users.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats those values as
>> >> > > > corresponding
>> >> > > > > > > signed
>> >> > > > > > > > > > types.
>> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in some cases only
>> >> because
>> >> > > > there
>> >> > > > > > are
>> >> > > > > > > no
>> >> > > > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very simple change to the
>> >> > > protocol
>> >> > > > -
>> >> > > > > > add
>> >> > > > > > > > type
>> >> > > > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as signed
>> >> counterparts.
>> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise
>> representation
>> >> is
>> >> > > the
>> >> > > > > > same)
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a uByte field
>> and
>> >> map
>> >> > it
>> >> > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > 'uint8'
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > column.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to "250" and put the
>> >> object
>> >> > > > into a
>> >> > > > > > > > table,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a single byte 'int8'
>> >> > column.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it to directly
>> the
>> >> Java
>> >> > > > > object
>> >> > > > > > > > field
>> >> > > > > > > > > of
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8 type to Java
>> >> 'short'
>> >> > > type
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > because the one expected to see "250" as a value
>> which
>> >> > > > doesn't
>> >> > > > > > fit
>> >> > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > signed type.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a BigInteger field in
>> >> Java.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat column value as Java
>> >> 'byte'
>> >> > as
>> >> > > > is,
>> >> > > > > > > > because
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a negative value, so it
>> >> should
>> >> > > be
>> >> > > > > cast
>> >> > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > short
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger for uint64)
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will require a different
>> >> > > comparator.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
>> >> > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a good idea.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the simple approach
>> I
>> >> > > > described?
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrey Mashenkov
>> <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing range for unsigned
>> >> types
>> >> > > > then
>> >> > > > > we
>> >> > > > > > > > could
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > add a
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on schema level
>> >> (like
>> >> > > > > > nullability
>> >> > > > > > > > > flag)
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types in storage.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate storage
>> type-system
>> >> and
>> >> > > > binary
>> >> > > > > > > > > protocol
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of type will match 1
>> to
>> >> 1
>> >> > > with
>> >> > > > > > > storage
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > (native)
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either have a separate
>> type
>> >> id
>> >> > or
>> >> > > > > treat
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > serialized
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed or unsigned
>> >> flag).
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever foresee the
>> >> consequences
>> >> > of
>> >> > > > > using
>> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > types.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned types perfectly
>> >> works
>> >> > > > with
>> >> > > > > > some
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > database,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite successor confession
>> >> with
>> >> > our
>> >> > > > > > > "native"
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he can use the power
>> of
>> >> > Ignite
>> >> > > > > > Compute
>> >> > > > > > > > on
>> >> > > > > > > > > > Java
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either fail to use his
>> >> > unsigned
>> >> > > > data
>> >> > > > > > on
>> >> > > > > > > > Java
>> >> > > > > > > > > > due
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > or
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due to natural Java
>> type
>> >> > system
>> >> > > > > > > > limitations
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > e.g.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively supported types with
>> >> possible
>> >> > > > value
>> >> > > > > > > > ranges
>> >> > > > > > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is what trade-off we
>> found
>> >> > > > > acceptable:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > narrowing
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use types of wider
>> range on
>> >> > > > systems
>> >> > > > > > like
>> >> > > > > > > > > Java.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor Sapego <
>> >> > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so hard to
>> implement
>> >> > > > > comparison
>> >> > > > > > > of
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not seem to be a
>> >> big
>> >> > > issue
>> >> > > > > > from
>> >> > > > > > > my
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned types from Java
>> - I
>> >> > > think,
>> >> > > > > if
>> >> > > > > > a
>> >> > > > > > > > user
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > uses
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to interact with it
>> >> from
>> >> > > Java
>> >> > > > he
>> >> > > > > > > knows
>> >> > > > > > > > > > what
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > he
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from platforms where
>> >> they
>> >> > > have
>> >> > > > > > native
>> >> > > > > > > > > > support
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > widely
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where users
>> currently
>> >> > have
>> >> > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > make a
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > manual
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > casting
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using unsigned types when
>> they
>> >> > use
>> >> > > > > > Ignite.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM Pavel
>> Tupitsyn <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for those types
>> >> > (basically,
>> >> > > > just
>> >> > > > > > add
>> >> > > > > > > > > more
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise
>> >> > > representation
>> >> > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > same)
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned integers,
>> so
>> >> we
>> >> > can
>> >> > > > > > simply
>> >> > > > > > > > say
>> >> > > > > > > > > > that
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative comparison is not
>> >> > supported
>> >> > > > in
>> >> > > > > > SQL
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > (equality
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM Andrey
>> >> Mashenkov
>> >> > <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have i8 or int8
>> >> instead of
>> >> > > > > > Integer.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't address the issue.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types should be portable
>> >> > across
>> >> > > > > > > different
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > systems
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type support.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is that unsigned
>> types
>> >> > cover
>> >> > > > > > > different
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > ranges.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to introduce a
>> uLong.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big deal to add
>> uLong
>> >> > type
>> >> > > > > > support
>> >> > > > > > > > at
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > storage
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and then use it
>> in
>> >> e.g.
>> >> > > > .Net
>> >> > > > > > > only.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support it in e.g. Java?
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range is about
>> >> (2^-63
>> >> > ..
>> >> > > > > 2^63)
>> >> > > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > uLong
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > range
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to restrict range
>> to
>> >> (0
>> >> > ..
>> >> > > > > > 2^63).
>> >> > > > > > > > This
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > allows
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but doesn't look
>> >> like
>> >> > a
>> >> > > > > 'real'
>> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uLong
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse when the user
>> will
>> >> use
>> >> > > > > uByte,
>> >> > > > > > as
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > limitation
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map unsigned
>> types
>> >> to a
>> >> > > > type
>> >> > > > > of
>> >> > > > > > > > wider
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative values. E.g.
>> >> uLong to
>> >> > > > > > > BigInteger.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive Java type for
>> >> Long
>> >> > > here.
>> >> > > > > > > > However,
>> >> > > > > > > > > it
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > still
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8 bytes, but
>> >> have a
>> >> > > > > special
>> >> > > > > > > > > > comparator
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid unwanted
>> >> > deserialization.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Pavel
>> >> Tupitsyn
>> >> > <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of "long, short,
>> >> byte"
>> >> > in
>> >> > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > protocol
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style, which is concise
>> >> and
>> >> > > > > > > unambiguous:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM Igor
>> >> Sapego <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support that. Also, if we
>> are
>> >> > > aiming
>> >> > > > > for
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger platform-independance,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may want to support
>> >> > > > > bit-notation
>> >> > > > > > > > > (int32,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a different type on
>> >> > different
>> >> > > > > > > platforms
>> >> > > > > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often when using ODBC
>> for
>> >> > > > example).
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM Pavel
>> >> > > Tupitsyn
>> >> > > > <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should support unsigned
>> >> data
>> >> > > > types:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have them, but many
>> >> other
>> >> > > > > languages
>> >> > > > > > > do,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing number of thin
>> >> > clients
>> >> > > > > this
>> >> > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > important.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in current Ignite.NET
>> >> > > > > implementation
>> >> > > > > > > we
>> >> > > > > > > > > > store
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain when it
>> comes
>> >> to
>> >> > > > > > metadata,
>> >> > > > > > > > > binary
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to deserialize int as
>> uint
>> >> > when
>> >> > > > you
>> >> > > > > > > have
>> >> > > > > > > > a
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > class,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM
>> >> Andrey
>> >> > > > > > Mashenkov <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both serializers use
>> >> > > reflection
>> >> > > > > > API.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will allow users to
>> >> > configure
>> >> > > > > > static
>> >> > > > > > > > > schema
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > along
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still need to
>> >> validate
>> >> > > user
>> >> > > > > > > classes
>> >> > > > > > > > > on
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > client
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in the grid
>> and
>> >> > > > reflection
>> >> > > > > > API
>> >> > > > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > only
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few articles on
>> the
>> >> > > internet
>> >> > > > > on
>> >> > > > > > > how
>> >> > > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > enable
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task for supporting
>> >> > > GraalVM,
>> >> > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > maybe
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > someone
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM will
>> suggest a
>> >> > > > solution
>> >> > > > > > or
>> >> > > > > > > a
>> >> > > > > > > > > > proper
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is found, we
>> could
>> >> > allow
>> >> > > > > users
>> >> > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > write
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > own
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I don't think it
>> is
>> >> a
>> >> > > good
>> >> > > > > idea
>> >> > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > expose
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > any
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the public.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM
>> >> Denis
>> >> > > > Magda <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the update,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the serializers
>> take
>> >> into
>> >> > > > > > > > consideration
>> >> > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native-image-generation
>> feature of
>> >> > > > GraalVM?
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current binary
>> >> marshaller,
>> >> > we
>> >> > > > > can't
>> >> > > > > > > even
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > generate
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using our thin
>> client
>> >> > > APIs.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM
>> >> > Andrey
>> >> > > > > > > Mashenkov
>> >> > > > > > > > <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to continue
>> discussion
>> >> of
>> >> > > > IEP-54
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who is
>> interested
>> >> > had a
>> >> > > > > > chance
>> >> > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > get
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to
>> ask
>> >> > > > questions
>> >> > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > share
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > your
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a prototype of
>> >> > > serializer
>> >> > > > > [2]
>> >> > > > > > > for
>> >> > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > data
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I compared 2
>> >> approaches
>> >> > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > (de)serialize
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java reflection/unsafe
>> API
>> >> and
>> >> > > > > similar
>> >> > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > one
>> >> > > > > > > > > > we
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second one generates
>> >> > > serializer
>> >> > > > > for
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > particular
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > user
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library for
>> compilation.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows better
>> results
>> >> in
>> >> > > > > > > benchmarks.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go with it as
>> >> > default
>> >> > > > > > > serializer
>> >> > > > > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > have
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation as a fallback
>> if
>> >> > > someone
>> >> > > > > > will
>> >> > > > > > > > have
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > issues
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of tasks
>> >> under
>> >> > the
>> >> > > > > > > umbrella
>> >> > > > > > > > > > ticket
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to create more
>> >> > tickets
>> >> > > > for
>> >> > > > > > > > schema
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > manager
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation, but would
>> like
>> >> to
>> >> > > > clarify
>> >> > > > > > > some
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > details.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought schemaManager on
>> each
>> >> > node
>> >> > > > > should
>> >> > > > > > > > held:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping of "schema
>> >> > > version"
>> >> > > > > <-->
>> >> > > > > > > > > > validated
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > local
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide schema
>> changes
>> >> > > > history.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client side. Before
>> any
>> >> > > > key-value
>> >> > > > > > API
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > operation
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > we
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a given key-value
>> >> pair.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no local-mapping
>> >> exists
>> >> > > > for a
>> >> > > > > > > given
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema has a
>> more
>> >> > recent
>> >> > > > > > version
>> >> > > > > > > > > then
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be validated against
>> the
>> >> > > latest
>> >> > > > > > > version
>> >> > > > > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > local
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object doesn't fit to
>> the
>> >> > > latest
>> >> > > > > > schema
>> >> > > > > > > > > then
>> >> > > > > > > > > > it
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > depends
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail the
>> operation
>> >> > > > ('strict'
>> >> > > > > > > mode)
>> >> > > > > > > > > or
>> >> > > > > > > > > > a
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > new
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a new schema
>> version
>> >> > > should
>> >> > > > > be
>> >> > > > > > > > > > propagated
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server side we usually
>> >> have
>> >> > no
>> >> > > > > > > key-value
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > classes
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change history is
>> >> > available
>> >> > > > > and a
>> >> > > > > > > > tuple
>> >> > > > > > > > > > has
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to upgrade any
>> >> > > received
>> >> > > > > > tuple
>> >> > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > last
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow nodes to
>> >> send
>> >> > > > > key-value
>> >> > > > > > > > pairs
>> >> > > > > > > > > > of
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't receive a schema
>> >> update
>> >> > > > yet)
>> >> > > > > > > > without
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > reverting
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node with newer
>> >> classes.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean
>> the
>> >> > > same?
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21
>> AM
>> >> > Ivan
>> >> > > > > > > Pavlukhin
>> >> > > > > > > > <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not ignore
>> history.
>> >> We
>> >> > > had
>> >> > > > a
>> >> > > > > > > thread
>> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > many
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can resume it.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00,
>> >> Denis
>> >> > > > Magda
>> >> > > > > <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks
>> for
>> >> > > > > > explaining.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we need to
>> have a
>> >> > > > separate
>> >> > > > > > > > > > discussion
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms
>> substitution.
>> >> > I'll
>> >> > > > > > > appreciate
>> >> > > > > > > > > it
>> >> > > > > > > > > > if
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > you
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing pointers to any
>> >> > relevant
>> >> > > > IEPs
>> >> > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > reasoning
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at
>> 6:01
>> >> PM
>> >> > > > > Valentin
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
>> >> > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the wording in
>> the
>> >> IEP
>> >> > > is
>> >> > > > a
>> >> > > > > > > little
>> >> > > > > > > > > bit
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you should not
>> create
>> >> > > nested
>> >> > > > > > POJOs,
>> >> > > > > > > > but
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > rather
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO that is
>> mapped
>> >> to
>> >> > a
>> >> > > > > > > particular
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > In
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not supported.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this correct?
>> >> Please
>> >> > > let
>> >> > > > me
>> >> > > > > > > know
>> >> > > > > > > > if
>> >> > > > > > > > > > I'm
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > missing
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the "cache"
>> term, I
>> >> > agree
>> >> > > > > that
>> >> > > > > > it
>> >> > > > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can replace it
>> >> with.
>> >> > > > "Table"
>> >> > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > tightly
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional in our
>> >> case.
>> >> > Do
>> >> > > > you
>> >> > > > > > want
>> >> > > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > create a
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at
>> >> 4:37 PM
>> >> > > > Denis
>> >> > > > > > > > Magda <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked the IEP
>> again
>> >> > and
>> >> > > > > have a
>> >> > > > > > > few
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > questions.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested
>> objects
>> >> and
>> >> > > > > > > collections
>> >> > > > > > > > > are
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > not
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should
>> >> either
>> >> > be
>> >> > > > > > inlined
>> >> > > > > > > > > into
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL
>> >> code
>> >> > > > > snippet
>> >> > > > > > > > > showing
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > how
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to work?
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep using the
>> >> terms
>> >> > > > > "cache"
>> >> > > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > "table"
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right time to
>> discuss
>> >> an
>> >> > > > > > alternate
>> >> > > > > > > > name
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the "table"
>> >> > should
>> >> > > > stay
>> >> > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one of the
>> >> > primary
>> >> > > > APIs
>> >> > > > > > in
>> >> > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at
>> >> 12:26
>> >> > PM
>> >> > > > > > > Valentin
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
>> >> > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your point. I
>> >> agree
>> >> > > that
>> >> > > > > with
>> >> > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > automatic
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last
>> territory.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we
>> support
>> >> > > > automatic
>> >> > > > > > > > > > evolution,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > we
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a cache
>> without
>> >> > > schema
>> >> > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > inferring
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other words, we can
>> have
>> >> > both
>> >> > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you
>> >> think?
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020
>> at
>> >> 5:59
>> >> > > AM
>> >> > > > > > Alexey
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> >> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got
>> your
>> >> > > concern
>> >> > > > > > now.
>> >> > > > > > > As
>> >> > > > > > > > > it
>> >> > > > > > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > terminology, I am
>> >> > > absolutely
>> >> > > > > fine
>> >> > > > > > > > with
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > changing
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the approach best.
>> >> > Dynamic
>> >> > > or
>> >> > > > > > > > evolving
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > corresponding
>> changes
>> >> to
>> >> > > the
>> >> > > > > IEP
>> >> > > > > > > once
>> >> > > > > > > > > we
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > settle
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020
>> г. в
>> >> > > 11:33,
>> >> > > > > Ivan
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for
>> your
>> >> > > answer!
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My understanding
>> is
>> >> a
>> >> > > > little
>> >> > > > > > bit
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > different.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > definitely
>> should be
>> >> > > > > possible.
>> >> > > > > > > But
>> >> > > > > > > > I
>> >> > > > > > > > > > see
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > a
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > main
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is
>> updated".
>> >> I
>> >> > > > treat a
>> >> > > > > > > > common
>> >> > > > > > > > > > SQL
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data
>> >> manipulation
>> >> > > > > > operations
>> >> > > > > > > > are
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > clearly
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > interesting
>> >> > capabilities,
>> >> > > > > e.g.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > preventing
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data
>> >> > operations,
>> >> > > > > > > > restricting
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > user
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first
>> means
>> >> > that
>> >> > > > > > schema
>> >> > > > > > > > > exists
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > in
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is compliant with
>> >> it -
>> >> > > > that's
>> >> > > > > > > > exactly
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > what
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last
>> >> approach
>> >> > > > > > mentioned
>> >> > > > > > > in
>> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > also
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is
>> >> > > inferred
>> >> > > > > from
>> >> > > > > > > > data.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > Is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing
>> approach?
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would like
>> to
>> >> > say,
>> >> > > > that
>> >> > > > > > my
>> >> > > > > > > > main
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > concern
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > terminology. And
>> I
>> >> > > suppose
>> >> > > > if
>> >> > > > > > it
>> >> > > > > > > > > > confuses
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > me
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused as
>> well. My
>> >> > > > feeling
>> >> > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > closer
>> >> > > > > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > >
>> >>
>> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47
>> >> > > GMT+03:00,
>> >> > > > > > > Valentin
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> >> > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
>> >> > > > > > >:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an
>> >> issue
>> >> > > with
>> >> > > > > > that.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance and all
>> >> the
>> >> > > > stored
>> >> > > > > > data
>> >> > > > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > compliant
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is proposed.
>> There
>> >> > are
>> >> > > no
>> >> > > > > > > > > > restrictions
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5,
>> >> 2020
>> >> > at
>> >> > > > 9:52
>> >> > > > > > PM
>> >> > > > > > > > Ivan
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> vololo100@gmail.com>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little
>> bit
>> >> > > > confused
>> >> > > > > > > with
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey
>> [1]
>> >> (see
>> >> > > > part
>> >> > > > > X
>> >> > > > > > > Semi
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Structured
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic
>> >> schema"
>> >> > > > > approach
>> >> > > > > > > as a
>> >> > > > > > > > > > kind
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > of
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > >
>> >>
>> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02
>> 1:53
>> >> > > > GMT+03:00,
>> >> > > > > > > Denis
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However,
>> could
>> >> > you
>> >> > > > > please
>> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a
>> use
>> >> > case
>> >> > > > for
>> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so
>> far)?
>> >> If
>> >> > so,
>> >> > > > > what
>> >> > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
>> >> > > > > > understanding,
>> >> > > > > > > > all
>> >> > > > > > > > > > you
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I
>> missing
>> >> > > > something?
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point,
>> >> yes,
>> >> > if
>> >> > > > all
>> >> > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > ORM
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > internally,
>> >> then
>> >> > > they
>> >> > > > > can
>> >> > > > > > > > easily
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > translate
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> INSERT/UPDATE
>> >> > > > statement
>> >> > > > > > that
>> >> > > > > > > > > lists
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > all
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data
>> >> > > > integration
>> >> > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > already
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > based
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be
>> improved
>> >> > once
>> >> > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > schema-first
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton
>> of
>> >> > > > usability
>> >> > > > > > > > issues.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would
>> revise
>> >> the
>> >> > > > > > Hibernate
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > integration
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't
>> >> say
>> >> > if
>> >> > > > it's
>> >> > > > > > > used
>> >> > > > > > > > a
>> >> > > > > > > > > > lot
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > but
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael
>> >> Pollind,
>> >> > > I'll
>> >> > > > > > loop
>> >> > > > > > > > you
>> >> > > > > > > > > in
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > as
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > long
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite
>> support
>> >> for
>> >> > > > > > Micornaut
>> >> > > > > > > > > Data
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came across
>> >> some
>> >> > > > > > challenges.
>> >> > > > > > > > > Just
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > watch
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in
>> >> Ignite
>> >> > > 3.0.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug
>> 31,
>> >> > 2020
>> >> > > > at
>> >> > > > > > 5:11
>> >> > > > > > > > PM
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally
>> >> > > speaking, I
>> >> > > > > > > believe
>> >> > > > > > > > > > that
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses
>> the
>> >> > issue
>> >> > > > if
>> >> > > > > > > > > duplicate
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > fields
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> because
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema
>> will be
>> >> > > > created
>> >> > > > > > for
>> >> > > > > > > a
>> >> > > > > > > > > > cache,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically,
>> the
>> >> > > schema
>> >> > > > > > will
>> >> > > > > > > > > define
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > whether
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which
>> >> fields
>> >> > > are
>> >> > > > > > > included
>> >> > > > > > > > > in
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > case
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must
>> be
>> >> > > > compliant
>> >> > > > > > with
>> >> > > > > > > > > this,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > so
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as
>> with a
>> >> > set
>> >> > > of
>> >> > > > > > > > records,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > rather
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However,
>> could
>> >> > you
>> >> > > > > please
>> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a
>> use
>> >> > case
>> >> > > > for
>> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so
>> far)?
>> >> If
>> >> > so,
>> >> > > > > what
>> >> > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
>> >> > > > > > understanding,
>> >> > > > > > > > all
>> >> > > > > > > > > > you
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I
>> missing
>> >> > > > something?
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug
>> >> 31,
>> >> > > 2020
>> >> > > > at
>> >> > > > > > > 2:08
>> >> > > > > > > > PM
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > Denis
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> dmagda@apache.org>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would
>> >> propose
>> >> > > > > adding
>> >> > > > > > > > > another
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > point
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related
>> to
>> >> the
>> >> > > ORM
>> >> > > > > > > > frameworks
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > such
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many
>> others.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> Presently,
>> >> the
>> >> > > > > storage
>> >> > > > > > > > engine
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requires
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value
>> ones
>> >> that
>> >> > > > > > > complicate
>> >> > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > usage
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> frameworks
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> (especially
>> >> if
>> >> > a
>> >> > > > key
>> >> > > > > > > object
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > comprises
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found
>> here:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will
>> be
>> >> nice
>> >> > > if
>> >> > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > new
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single
>> >> entity
>> >> > > > object
>> >> > > > > > when
>> >> > > > > > > > it
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > comes
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity
>> into
>> >> a
>> >> > key
>> >> > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > value.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > Just
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > want
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the
>> >> > essential
>> >> > > > > > public
>> >> > > > > > > > APIs
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > single-entity
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do
>> you
>> >> > > think?
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri,
>> Aug
>> >> 28,
>> >> > > > 2020
>> >> > > > > at
>> >> > > > > > > > 3:50
>> >> > > > > > > > > PM
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
>> Igniters,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of
>> the
>> >> > big
>> >> > > > > > changes
>> >> > > > > > > > > > proposed
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
>> >> "schema-first
>> >> > > > > > > approach".
>> >> > > > > > > > To
>> >> > > > > > > > > > add
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > more
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for
>> this
>> >> > > change:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please
>> >> take a
>> >> > > > look
>> >> > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > let
>> >> > > > > > > > > me
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > know
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
>> thoughts,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
>> >> suggestions,
>> >> > or
>> >> > > > > > > > objections.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > --
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > --
>> >> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> >> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > --
>> >> > > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > --
>> >> > > > Best regards,
>> >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>


-- 
Best regards,
Andrey V. Mashenkov

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>]

I've updated a PR regarding your feedback [1].

[1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:58 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:

> Folks,
>
> I updated the IEP to contain the missing pieces; actually, most of the
> questions here were covered by the text. Please let me know if there is
> something still missing or unclear.
>
> чт, 31 дек. 2020 г. в 12:48, Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> >:
>
> > Mikhail and Igniters,
> >
> > Thanks for your comments. The questions are reasonable, though I think
> all
> > concerns are addressed by the IEP as Val mentioned. I will update the
> > document according to your questions in the following week or so, so we
> can
> > have a constructive discussion further.
> >
> > ср, 30 дек. 2020 г. в 11:45, Michael Cherkasov <
> > michael.cherkasov@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> Hi Val, Andrey,
> >>
> >> thank you for clarifying.
> >>
> >> I still have a few comments.
> >>
> >> 1. one table == one schema. KV vs SQL:
> >> Looks like all agreed that KV is just a special case of a regular table
> >> with (blob,blob) schema.
> >> I worry about the case when the user starts from KV case and later will
> >> try
> >> to expand it and try to leverage SQL for the existing KV table it won't
> be
> >> able to do so and will require to reload data. which isn't convenient
> and
> >> sometimes not even possible. Is it possible to extract a new field from
> >> (blob, blob) schema and apply index on it?
> >>
> >> 2. Could you please also list all ways of schema definition in the IEP?
> It
> >> significant change and I bet the main point of this IEP, everyone hates
> >> QueryEntities, they are difficult to manage and in general, it's very
> >> confusing to have a data model(schemas) and node/cluster configuration
> in
> >> one place.
> >>
> >> So there will be SchemaBuilder and SQL to define schemas, but Andrey
> also
> >> mentioned annotations.
> >>
> >> I personally against configuration via annotations, while it's
> convenient
> >> for development, it difficult to manage because different classes can be
> >> deployed on different clients/servers nodes and it can lead to
> >> unpredictable results.
> >>
> >> 3. IEP doesn't mention field type changes, only drop/add fields. Field
> >> type
> >> changes are extremely painful right now(if even possible), so it would
> be
> >> nice if some scenarios would be supported(like int8->int16, or
> >> int8->String).
> >>
> >> 4. got it, I thought IEP will have more details about the
> implementation.
> >> I've seen Andrey even sent benchmark results for a new serialization,
> will
> >> ping him about this.
> >>
> >> 5. Thanks for the clarification. I had a wrong understanding of strick
> >> mode.
> >>
> >>
> >> вт, 29 дек. 2020 г. в 19:32, Valentin Kulichenko <
> >> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> > Hi Mike,
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for providing your feedback. Please see my comments below.
> >> >
> >> > I would also encourage you to go through the IEP-54 [1] - it has a lot
> >> of
> >> > detail on the topic.
> >> >
> >> > [1]
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> >> >
> >> > -Val
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:22 PM Michael Cherkasov <
> >> > michael.cherkasov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi all,
> >> > >
> >> > > I reviewed the mail thread and proposal page and I still don't fully
> >> > > understand what is going to be changed, I would really appreciate it
> >> if
> >> > you
> >> > > will answer a few questions:
> >> > >
> >> > > 1. Are you going to leave only one schema per cache? if so, will be
> >> there
> >> > > an option to have a table with arbitrary objects(pure KV case)?
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > My opinion is that KV case should be natively supported. I think this
> >> still
> >> > needs to be thought over, my current view on this is that we should
> have
> >> > separate APIs for KV and more generic storages. KV storage can be
> >> > implemented as a "table" with two BLOB fields where we will store
> >> > serialized key-value pairs. That would imply deserialization on read,
> >> but I
> >> > believe this is OK for KV use cases. I'm happy to hear other ideas
> >> though
> >> > :)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0 have to define schema?
> >> > SchemaBuilder
> >> > > and SQL only? Is there an option to put the schema definition to the
> >> > > configuration?(I really don't like this, I would prefer to have
> >> > > separate scripts to create schemas)
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > There will be no such thing as a static configuration in the first
> >> place.
> >> > Tables and schemas are created in runtime. Even if there is a file
> >> provided
> >> > on node startup, this file is only applied in the scope of the 'start'
> >> > operation. All configurations will be stored in a meta storage
> >> available to
> >> > all nodes, as opposed to individual files.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > 3. Is there a way to change field type? if yes, can it be done in
> >> > runtime?
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Absolutely! IEP-54 has a whole section about schema evolution.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going to be re-worked too, is
> there
> >> any
> >> > > IEP for this?
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > BinaryMarshaller as a tool for arbitrary object serialization will be
> >> gone,
> >> > but we will reuse a lot of its concept to implement an internal tuple
> >> > serialization mechanism. IEP-54 has the description of the proposed
> data
> >> > format.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > 5. I don't like automatic schema evaluation when a new field is
> added
> >> > > automatically on record put, so is there a way to prohibit this
> >> behavior?
> >> > >  I think all schema changes should be done only explicitly except
> >> initial
> >> > > schema creation.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > The way I see it is that we should have two modes: schema-first and
> >> > schema-last. Schema-first means exactly what you've described -
> schemas
> >> are
> >> > defined and updated explicitly by the user. In the schema-last mode,
> >> > the user does not deal with schemas, as they are inferred from the
> data
> >> > inserted into tables. We should definitely not mix these modes - it
> has
> >> to
> >> > be one or another. And it probably makes sense to discuss which mode
> >> should
> >> > be the default one.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks,
> >> > > Mike.
> >> > >
> >> > > пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey Mashenkov <
> >> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> >> > > >:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Hi, Igniters.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > We all know that the current QueryEntity API is not convenient and
> >> > needs
> >> > > to
> >> > > > be reworked.
> >> > > > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema configuration public API
> >> for
> >> > > > Ignite 3.0.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > New schema configuration uses Builder pattern, which looks more
> >> > > comfortable
> >> > > > to use.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package with the API itself,
> and
> >> a
> >> > > draft
> >> > > > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
> >> > > > and a test that demonstrates how the API could be used.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Please note:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with static factory
> methods.
> >> > > > * The implementation is decoupled and can be easily extracted to
> >> > separate
> >> > > > module if we decide to do so.
> >> > > > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are missed, they will be
> added
> >> > > lately
> >> > > > in separate tickes.
> >> > > > * Index configuration extends marker interface that makes possible
> >> to
> >> > > > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
> >> > > > Hopfully, we could add a persistent geo-indices support in future.
> >> > > > * Supposedly, current table schema can be changed via builder-like
> >> > > > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See
> >> 'TableModificationBuilder'
> >> > > for
> >> > > > details.
> >> > > > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have 'toBuilder()' converter for
> >> that
> >> > > > purpose as it is a Schema Manager responsibility to create mutator
> >> > > objects
> >> > > > from the current schema,
> >> > > > but implementing the Schema manager is out of scope and will be
> >> > designed
> >> > > > within the next task.
> >> > > > * Interfaces implementations are out of scope. I did not intend to
> >> > merge
> >> > > > them right now, but for test/demostration purposes.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > It is NOT the final version and some may be changed before the
> first
> >> > > > release of course.
> >> > > > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed with this approach or
> >> some
> >> > > > issues should be resolved at first.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Any thoughts or objections?
> >> > > > Are interfaces good enough to be merged within the current ticket?
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <jury.gerzhedowich@gmail.com
> >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
> >> > > > > 2. It requires adding new types to the internal representation,
> >> > > protocol,
> >> > > > > e.t.c.
> >> > > > > 3. internal representation should be the same as we keep sign
> >> types.
> >> > So
> >> > > > it
> >> > > > > will not requires more memory
> >> > > > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such types for platforms
> >> which
> >> > not
> >> > > > > support unsigned types. For example, a user could derive -6
> value
> >> in
> >> > > Java
> >> > > > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits perspective will be
> >> right). I
> >> > > > think
> >> > > > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such cases, especially it
> >> will be
> >> > > bad
> >> > > > > for unsigned long when we require returns BigInteger type.
> >> > > > > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix for new types like a
> >> > > '250u' -
> >> > > > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
> >> > > > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive comparison logic for
> >> > indexes
> >> > > > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for expressions. I think it
> >> not
> >> > > > > possible for the current H2 engine and probably possible for the
> >> new
> >> > > > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from anybody who involved in
> >> this
> >> > > part
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > WDYT?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey Goncharuk <
> >> > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> >> > > > > >:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0: once we the
> actual
> >> > type
> >> > > > > > information, we can make proper runtime adjustments and
> >> conversions
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will be just a bit more
> >> > > expensive.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> >> ptupitsyn@apache.org
> >> > >:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
> >> > > > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons and so on are
> >> broken
> >> > > > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned this somewhere
> >> > above.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document that SQL is not
> >> supported
> >> > on
> >> > > > > those
> >> > > > > > > types,
> >> > > > > > > end of story.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> >> > > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable request. I thought
> about
> >> > this
> >> > > > > when
> >> > > > > > I
> >> > > > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add these types
> right
> >> > > away.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with
> >> .NET
> >> > > and
> >> > > > > C++
> >> > > > > > :)
> >> > > > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually works as expected, it
> >> needs
> >> > > > some
> >> > > > > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns are false):
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >    - It's true that equality check works properly, but for
> >> SQL
> >> > > > range
> >> > > > > > > >    queries it will break unless some special care is taken
> >> on
> >> > > Java
> >> > > > > > side:
> >> > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will be converted to
> >> -1,
> >> > > > which
> >> > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we don't have unsigned
> types
> >> > now,
> >> > > I
> >> > > > > > doubt
> >> > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > >    works.
> >> > > > > > > >    - There is an obvious cross-platform data loss when
> >> > > "intuitive"
> >> > > > > type
> >> > > > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8 corresponds to byte type
> in
> >> > > .NET,
> >> > > > > but
> >> > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have to use short type
> in
> >> > Java,
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > > >    will also need to take care of the range check during
> >> > > > > > serialization).
> >> > > > > > > I
> >> > > > > > > >    think we can even allow to try to deserialize a value
> >> into
> >> > > > > arbitrary
> >> > > > > > > > type,
> >> > > > > > > >    but throw an exception if the range is out of bounds.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
> >> > > > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once all the details
> >> are
> >> > > > settled
> >> > > > > > > here?
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey Mashenkov <
> >> > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> >> > > > > > > > >:
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't be treated
> >> correctly
> >> > > for
> >> > > > > now
> >> > > > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > I think we could make "true" support for unsigned types,
> >> but
> >> > > they
> >> > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > > > have
> >> > > > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
> >> > > > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map uint64 to Java
> long
> >> > > > > primitive,
> >> > > > > > > but
> >> > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > BigInteger only.
> >> > > > > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64 to Java long, but
> >> treat
> >> > > > > negative
> >> > > > > > > > > values in a different way to preserve correct ordering.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > These limitations will affect only mixed environments
> when
> >> > .Net
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > > > Java
> >> > > > > > > > > used to access the data.
> >> > > > > > > > > Will this solution address your issues?
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> >> > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning
> with
> >> > .NET
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > > C++
> >> > > > > > > :)
> >> > > > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as cache keys and
> >> values,
> >> > as
> >> > > > > fields
> >> > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > properties,
> >> > > > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y clauses) - it
> >> works
> >> > > > > > > transparently
> >> > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > > the users.
> >> > > > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats those values as
> >> > > > corresponding
> >> > > > > > > signed
> >> > > > > > > > > > types.
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in some cases only
> >> because
> >> > > > there
> >> > > > > > are
> >> > > > > > > no
> >> > > > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> >> > > > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very simple change to the
> >> > > protocol
> >> > > > -
> >> > > > > > add
> >> > > > > > > > type
> >> > > > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as signed
> >> counterparts.
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> >> > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise
> representation
> >> is
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > same)
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a uByte field and
> >> map
> >> > it
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > 'uint8'
> >> > > > > > > > > > > column.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to "250" and put the
> >> object
> >> > > > into a
> >> > > > > > > > table,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a single byte 'int8'
> >> > column.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it to directly the
> >> Java
> >> > > > > object
> >> > > > > > > > field
> >> > > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8 type to Java
> >> 'short'
> >> > > type
> >> > > > > > > > > > > because the one expected to see "250" as a value
> which
> >> > > > doesn't
> >> > > > > > fit
> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > signed type.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a BigInteger field in
> >> Java.
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat column value as Java
> >> 'byte'
> >> > as
> >> > > > is,
> >> > > > > > > > because
> >> > > > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a negative value, so it
> >> should
> >> > > be
> >> > > > > cast
> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > short
> >> > > > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger for uint64)
> >> > > > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will require a different
> >> > > comparator.
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> >> > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a good idea.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the simple approach I
> >> > > > described?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing range for unsigned
> >> types
> >> > > > then
> >> > > > > we
> >> > > > > > > > could
> >> > > > > > > > > > > add a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on schema level
> >> (like
> >> > > > > > nullability
> >> > > > > > > > > flag)
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types in storage.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate storage type-system
> >> and
> >> > > > binary
> >> > > > > > > > > protocol
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of type will match 1
> to
> >> 1
> >> > > with
> >> > > > > > > storage
> >> > > > > > > > > > > (native)
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either have a separate
> type
> >> id
> >> > or
> >> > > > > treat
> >> > > > > > > > > > > serialized
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed or unsigned
> >> flag).
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever foresee the
> >> consequences
> >> > of
> >> > > > > using
> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > types.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned types perfectly
> >> works
> >> > > > with
> >> > > > > > some
> >> > > > > > > > > > > database,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite successor confession
> >> with
> >> > our
> >> > > > > > > "native"
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he can use the power of
> >> > Ignite
> >> > > > > > Compute
> >> > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > > > > > Java
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either fail to use his
> >> > unsigned
> >> > > > data
> >> > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > > > Java
> >> > > > > > > > > > due
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due to natural Java type
> >> > system
> >> > > > > > > > limitations
> >> > > > > > > > > > > e.g.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively supported types with
> >> possible
> >> > > > value
> >> > > > > > > > ranges
> >> > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is what trade-off we found
> >> > > > > acceptable:
> >> > > > > > > > > > narrowing
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use types of wider range
> on
> >> > > > systems
> >> > > > > > like
> >> > > > > > > > > Java.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor Sapego <
> >> > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so hard to
> implement
> >> > > > > comparison
> >> > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not seem to be a
> >> big
> >> > > issue
> >> > > > > > from
> >> > > > > > > my
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned types from Java
> - I
> >> > > think,
> >> > > > > if
> >> > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > > > user
> >> > > > > > > > > > > uses
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to interact with it
> >> from
> >> > > Java
> >> > > > he
> >> > > > > > > knows
> >> > > > > > > > > > what
> >> > > > > > > > > > > he
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from platforms where
> >> they
> >> > > have
> >> > > > > > native
> >> > > > > > > > > > support
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > widely
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where users
> currently
> >> > have
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > > make a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > manual
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > casting
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using unsigned types when
> they
> >> > use
> >> > > > > > Ignite.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM Pavel
> Tupitsyn <
> >> > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for those types
> >> > (basically,
> >> > > > just
> >> > > > > > add
> >> > > > > > > > > more
> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise
> >> > > representation
> >> > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > same)
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned integers, so
> >> we
> >> > can
> >> > > > > > simply
> >> > > > > > > > say
> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative comparison is not
> >> > supported
> >> > > > in
> >> > > > > > SQL
> >> > > > > > > > > > > (equality
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM Andrey
> >> Mashenkov
> >> > <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have i8 or int8
> >> instead of
> >> > > > > > Integer.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't address the issue.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types should be portable
> >> > across
> >> > > > > > > different
> >> > > > > > > > > > > systems
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type support.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is that unsigned types
> >> > cover
> >> > > > > > > different
> >> > > > > > > > > > > ranges.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to introduce a uLong.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big deal to add
> uLong
> >> > type
> >> > > > > > support
> >> > > > > > > > at
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > storage
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and then use it in
> >> e.g.
> >> > > > .Net
> >> > > > > > > only.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support it in e.g. Java?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range is about
> >> (2^-63
> >> > ..
> >> > > > > 2^63)
> >> > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > uLong
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > range
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to restrict range
> to
> >> (0
> >> > ..
> >> > > > > > 2^63).
> >> > > > > > > > This
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but doesn't look
> >> like
> >> > a
> >> > > > > 'real'
> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uLong
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse when the user
> will
> >> use
> >> > > > > uByte,
> >> > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > limitation
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map unsigned types
> >> to a
> >> > > > type
> >> > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > wider
> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative values. E.g.
> >> uLong to
> >> > > > > > > BigInteger.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive Java type for
> >> Long
> >> > > here.
> >> > > > > > > > However,
> >> > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > still
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8 bytes, but
> >> have a
> >> > > > > special
> >> > > > > > > > > > comparator
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid unwanted
> >> > deserialization.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Pavel
> >> Tupitsyn
> >> > <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of "long, short,
> >> byte"
> >> > in
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > protocol
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style, which is concise
> >> and
> >> > > > > > > unambiguous:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM Igor
> >> Sapego <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support that. Also, if we
> are
> >> > > aiming
> >> > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger platform-independance,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may want to support
> >> > > > > bit-notation
> >> > > > > > > > > (int32,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a different type on
> >> > different
> >> > > > > > > platforms
> >> > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often when using ODBC
> for
> >> > > > example).
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM Pavel
> >> > > Tupitsyn
> >> > > > <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should support unsigned
> >> data
> >> > > > types:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have them, but many
> >> other
> >> > > > > languages
> >> > > > > > > do,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing number of thin
> >> > clients
> >> > > > > this
> >> > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > important.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in current Ignite.NET
> >> > > > > implementation
> >> > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > > > > > store
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain when it
> comes
> >> to
> >> > > > > > metadata,
> >> > > > > > > > > binary
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to deserialize int as
> uint
> >> > when
> >> > > > you
> >> > > > > > > have
> >> > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > class,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM
> >> Andrey
> >> > > > > > Mashenkov <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both serializers use
> >> > > reflection
> >> > > > > > API.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will allow users to
> >> > configure
> >> > > > > > static
> >> > > > > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > along
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still need to
> >> validate
> >> > > user
> >> > > > > > > classes
> >> > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > client
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in the grid  and
> >> > > > reflection
> >> > > > > > API
> >> > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > only
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few articles on the
> >> > > internet
> >> > > > > on
> >> > > > > > > how
> >> > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > enable
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task for supporting
> >> > > GraalVM,
> >> > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > maybe
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > someone
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM will
> suggest a
> >> > > > solution
> >> > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > > > > > proper
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is found, we
> could
> >> > allow
> >> > > > > users
> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > write
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > own
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I don't think it
> is
> >> a
> >> > > good
> >> > > > > idea
> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > expose
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > any
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the public.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM
> >> Denis
> >> > > > Magda <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the update,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the serializers take
> >> into
> >> > > > > > > > consideration
> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native-image-generation feature
> of
> >> > > > GraalVM?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current binary
> >> marshaller,
> >> > we
> >> > > > > can't
> >> > > > > > > even
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > generate
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using our thin
> client
> >> > > APIs.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM
> >> > Andrey
> >> > > > > > > Mashenkov
> >> > > > > > > > <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to continue
> discussion
> >> of
> >> > > > IEP-54
> >> > > > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who is
> interested
> >> > had a
> >> > > > > > chance
> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > get
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to ask
> >> > > > questions
> >> > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > share
> >> > > > > > > > > > > your
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a prototype of
> >> > > serializer
> >> > > > > [2]
> >> > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > data
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I compared 2
> >> approaches
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > (de)serialize
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java reflection/unsafe
> API
> >> and
> >> > > > > similar
> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > one
> >> > > > > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second one generates
> >> > > serializer
> >> > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > > > particular
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > user
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library for
> compilation.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows better
> results
> >> in
> >> > > > > > > benchmarks.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go with it as
> >> > default
> >> > > > > > > serializer
> >> > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation as a fallback
> if
> >> > > someone
> >> > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > > > have
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > issues
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of tasks
> >> under
> >> > the
> >> > > > > > > umbrella
> >> > > > > > > > > > ticket
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to create more
> >> > tickets
> >> > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > manager
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation, but would like
> >> to
> >> > > > clarify
> >> > > > > > > some
> >> > > > > > > > > > > details.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought schemaManager on
> each
> >> > node
> >> > > > > should
> >> > > > > > > > held:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping of "schema
> >> > > version"
> >> > > > > <-->
> >> > > > > > > > > > validated
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > local
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide schema
> changes
> >> > > > history.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client side. Before any
> >> > > > key-value
> >> > > > > > API
> >> > > > > > > > > > > operation
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a given key-value
> >> pair.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no local-mapping
> >> exists
> >> > > > for a
> >> > > > > > > given
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema has a more
> >> > recent
> >> > > > > > version
> >> > > > > > > > > then
> >> > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be validated against
> the
> >> > > latest
> >> > > > > > > version
> >> > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > local
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object doesn't fit to
> the
> >> > > latest
> >> > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > > > > then
> >> > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > depends
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail the
> operation
> >> > > > ('strict'
> >> > > > > > > mode)
> >> > > > > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > new
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a new schema
> version
> >> > > should
> >> > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > > propagated
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server side we usually
> >> have
> >> > no
> >> > > > > > > key-value
> >> > > > > > > > > > > classes
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change history is
> >> > available
> >> > > > > and a
> >> > > > > > > > tuple
> >> > > > > > > > > > has
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to upgrade any
> >> > > received
> >> > > > > > tuple
> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > last
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow nodes to
> >> send
> >> > > > > key-value
> >> > > > > > > > pairs
> >> > > > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't receive a schema
> >> update
> >> > > > yet)
> >> > > > > > > > without
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > reverting
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node with newer
> >> classes.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean
> the
> >> > > same?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> >> > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21
> AM
> >> > Ivan
> >> > > > > > > Pavlukhin
> >> > > > > > > > <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not ignore
> history.
> >> We
> >> > > had
> >> > > > a
> >> > > > > > > thread
> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > many
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can resume it.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00,
> >> Denis
> >> > > > Magda
> >> > > > > <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks
> for
> >> > > > > > explaining.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we need to
> have a
> >> > > > separate
> >> > > > > > > > > > discussion
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms
> substitution.
> >> > I'll
> >> > > > > > > appreciate
> >> > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > > if
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > you
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing pointers to any
> >> > relevant
> >> > > > IEPs
> >> > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > reasoning
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at
> 6:01
> >> PM
> >> > > > > Valentin
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the wording in
> the
> >> IEP
> >> > > is
> >> > > > a
> >> > > > > > > little
> >> > > > > > > > > bit
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you should not
> create
> >> > > nested
> >> > > > > > POJOs,
> >> > > > > > > > but
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > rather
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO that is
> mapped
> >> to
> >> > a
> >> > > > > > > particular
> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not supported.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this correct?
> >> Please
> >> > > let
> >> > > > me
> >> > > > > > > know
> >> > > > > > > > if
> >> > > > > > > > > > I'm
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > missing
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the "cache" term,
> I
> >> > agree
> >> > > > > that
> >> > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can replace it
> >> with.
> >> > > > "Table"
> >> > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > tightly
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional in our
> >> case.
> >> > Do
> >> > > > you
> >> > > > > > want
> >> > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > create a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at
> >> 4:37 PM
> >> > > > Denis
> >> > > > > > > > Magda <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked the IEP
> again
> >> > and
> >> > > > > have a
> >> > > > > > > few
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > questions.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects
> >> and
> >> > > > > > > collections
> >> > > > > > > > > are
> >> > > > > > > > > > > not
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should
> >> either
> >> > be
> >> > > > > > inlined
> >> > > > > > > > > into
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL
> >> code
> >> > > > > snippet
> >> > > > > > > > > showing
> >> > > > > > > > > > > how
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to work?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep using the
> >> terms
> >> > > > > "cache"
> >> > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right time to
> discuss
> >> an
> >> > > > > > alternate
> >> > > > > > > > name
> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the "table"
> >> > should
> >> > > > stay
> >> > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one of the
> >> > primary
> >> > > > APIs
> >> > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at
> >> 12:26
> >> > PM
> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your point. I
> >> agree
> >> > > that
> >> > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > automatic
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last territory.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we
> support
> >> > > > automatic
> >> > > > > > > > > > evolution,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a cache
> without
> >> > > schema
> >> > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > inferring
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other words, we can
> have
> >> > both
> >> > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you
> >> think?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at
> >> 5:59
> >> > > AM
> >> > > > > > Alexey
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got
> your
> >> > > concern
> >> > > > > > now.
> >> > > > > > > As
> >> > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > terminology, I am
> >> > > absolutely
> >> > > > > fine
> >> > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the approach best.
> >> > Dynamic
> >> > > or
> >> > > > > > > > evolving
> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > corresponding
> changes
> >> to
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > IEP
> >> > > > > > > once
> >> > > > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > settle
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г.
> в
> >> > > 11:33,
> >> > > > > Ivan
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for your
> >> > > answer!
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My understanding
> is
> >> a
> >> > > > little
> >> > > > > > bit
> >> > > > > > > > > > > different.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > definitely should
> be
> >> > > > > possible.
> >> > > > > > > But
> >> > > > > > > > I
> >> > > > > > > > > > see
> >> > > > > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > main
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is
> updated".
> >> I
> >> > > > treat a
> >> > > > > > > > common
> >> > > > > > > > > > SQL
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data
> >> manipulation
> >> > > > > > operations
> >> > > > > > > > are
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > clearly
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > interesting
> >> > capabilities,
> >> > > > > e.g.
> >> > > > > > > > > > preventing
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data
> >> > operations,
> >> > > > > > > > restricting
> >> > > > > > > > > > > user
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first
> means
> >> > that
> >> > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > > > > exists
> >> > > > > > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is compliant with
> >> it -
> >> > > > that's
> >> > > > > > > > exactly
> >> > > > > > > > > > > what
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last
> >> approach
> >> > > > > > mentioned
> >> > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > also
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is
> >> > > inferred
> >> > > > > from
> >> > > > > > > > data.
> >> > > > > > > > > > Is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing
> approach?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would like
> to
> >> > say,
> >> > > > that
> >> > > > > > my
> >> > > > > > > > main
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > concern
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > terminology. And I
> >> > > suppose
> >> > > > if
> >> > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > > confuses
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > me
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused as well.
> My
> >> > > > feeling
> >> > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > closer
> >> > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > >
> >> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47
> >> > > GMT+03:00,
> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> >> > > > > > >:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an
> >> issue
> >> > > with
> >> > > > > > that.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance and all
> >> the
> >> > > > stored
> >> > > > > > data
> >> > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > compliant
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is proposed.
> There
> >> > are
> >> > > no
> >> > > > > > > > > > restrictions
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5,
> >> 2020
> >> > at
> >> > > > 9:52
> >> > > > > > PM
> >> > > > > > > > Ivan
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> vololo100@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little
> bit
> >> > > > confused
> >> > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1]
> >> (see
> >> > > > part
> >> > > > > X
> >> > > > > > > Semi
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Structured
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic
> >> schema"
> >> > > > > approach
> >> > > > > > > as a
> >> > > > > > > > > > kind
> >> > > > > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > >
> >> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53
> >> > > > GMT+03:00,
> >> > > > > > > Denis
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However,
> could
> >> > you
> >> > > > > please
> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a
> use
> >> > case
> >> > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)?
> >> If
> >> > so,
> >> > > > > what
> >> > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
> >> > > > > > understanding,
> >> > > > > > > > all
> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing
> >> > > > something?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point,
> >> yes,
> >> > if
> >> > > > all
> >> > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > ORM
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > internally,
> >> then
> >> > > they
> >> > > > > can
> >> > > > > > > > easily
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > translate
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE
> >> > > > statement
> >> > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > > > > lists
> >> > > > > > > > > > > all
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data
> >> > > > integration
> >> > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > already
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > based
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be
> improved
> >> > once
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton
> of
> >> > > > usability
> >> > > > > > > > issues.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would
> revise
> >> the
> >> > > > > > Hibernate
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > integration
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't
> >> say
> >> > if
> >> > > > it's
> >> > > > > > > used
> >> > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > > > > > lot
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael
> >> Pollind,
> >> > > I'll
> >> > > > > > loop
> >> > > > > > > > you
> >> > > > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > long
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite
> support
> >> for
> >> > > > > > Micornaut
> >> > > > > > > > > Data
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came across
> >> some
> >> > > > > > challenges.
> >> > > > > > > > > Just
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > watch
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in
> >> Ignite
> >> > > 3.0.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug
> 31,
> >> > 2020
> >> > > > at
> >> > > > > > 5:11
> >> > > > > > > > PM
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally
> >> > > speaking, I
> >> > > > > > > believe
> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses
> the
> >> > issue
> >> > > > if
> >> > > > > > > > > duplicate
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> because
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will
> be
> >> > > > created
> >> > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > > > > > cache,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically,
> the
> >> > > schema
> >> > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > > > > define
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > whether
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which
> >> fields
> >> > > are
> >> > > > > > > included
> >> > > > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > > > case
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be
> >> > > > compliant
> >> > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > > > this,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > so
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as
> with a
> >> > set
> >> > > of
> >> > > > > > > > records,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > rather
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However,
> could
> >> > you
> >> > > > > please
> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a
> use
> >> > case
> >> > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)?
> >> If
> >> > so,
> >> > > > > what
> >> > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
> >> > > > > > understanding,
> >> > > > > > > > all
> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing
> >> > > > something?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug
> >> 31,
> >> > > 2020
> >> > > > at
> >> > > > > > > 2:08
> >> > > > > > > > PM
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> dmagda@apache.org>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would
> >> propose
> >> > > > > adding
> >> > > > > > > > > another
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > point
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to
> >> the
> >> > > ORM
> >> > > > > > > > frameworks
> >> > > > > > > > > > > such
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many
> others.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently,
> >> the
> >> > > > > storage
> >> > > > > > > > engine
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requires
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones
> >> that
> >> > > > > > > complicate
> >> > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> (especially
> >> if
> >> > a
> >> > > > key
> >> > > > > > > object
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > comprises
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found
> here:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be
> >> nice
> >> > > if
> >> > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > new
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single
> >> entity
> >> > > > object
> >> > > > > > when
> >> > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > > > comes
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity
> into
> >> a
> >> > key
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > value.
> >> > > > > > > > > > Just
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > want
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the
> >> > essential
> >> > > > > > public
> >> > > > > > > > APIs
> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > single-entity
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do
> you
> >> > > think?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri,
> Aug
> >> 28,
> >> > > > 2020
> >> > > > > at
> >> > > > > > > > 3:50
> >> > > > > > > > > PM
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> Igniters,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of
> the
> >> > big
> >> > > > > > changes
> >> > > > > > > > > > proposed
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >> "schema-first
> >> > > > > > > approach".
> >> > > > > > > > To
> >> > > > > > > > > > add
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this
> >> > > change:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please
> >> take a
> >> > > > look
> >> > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > let
> >> > > > > > > > > me
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > know
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> thoughts,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >> suggestions,
> >> > or
> >> > > > > > > > objections.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > --
> >> > > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>


-- 
Best regards,
Andrey V. Mashenkov

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Alexey Goncharuk <al...@gmail.com>]

Folks,

I updated the IEP to contain the missing pieces; actually, most of the
questions here were covered by the text. Please let me know if there is
something still missing or unclear.

чт, 31 дек. 2020 г. в 12:48, Alexey Goncharuk <al...@gmail.com>:

> Mikhail and Igniters,
>
> Thanks for your comments. The questions are reasonable, though I think all
> concerns are addressed by the IEP as Val mentioned. I will update the
> document according to your questions in the following week or so, so we can
> have a constructive discussion further.
>
> ср, 30 дек. 2020 г. в 11:45, Michael Cherkasov <
> michael.cherkasov@gmail.com>:
>
>> Hi Val, Andrey,
>>
>> thank you for clarifying.
>>
>> I still have a few comments.
>>
>> 1. one table == one schema. KV vs SQL:
>> Looks like all agreed that KV is just a special case of a regular table
>> with (blob,blob) schema.
>> I worry about the case when the user starts from KV case and later will
>> try
>> to expand it and try to leverage SQL for the existing KV table it won't be
>> able to do so and will require to reload data. which isn't convenient and
>> sometimes not even possible. Is it possible to extract a new field from
>> (blob, blob) schema and apply index on it?
>>
>> 2. Could you please also list all ways of schema definition in the IEP? It
>> significant change and I bet the main point of this IEP, everyone hates
>> QueryEntities, they are difficult to manage and in general, it's very
>> confusing to have a data model(schemas) and node/cluster configuration in
>> one place.
>>
>> So there will be SchemaBuilder and SQL to define schemas, but Andrey also
>> mentioned annotations.
>>
>> I personally against configuration via annotations, while it's convenient
>> for development, it difficult to manage because different classes can be
>> deployed on different clients/servers nodes and it can lead to
>> unpredictable results.
>>
>> 3. IEP doesn't mention field type changes, only drop/add fields. Field
>> type
>> changes are extremely painful right now(if even possible), so it would be
>> nice if some scenarios would be supported(like int8->int16, or
>> int8->String).
>>
>> 4. got it, I thought IEP will have more details about the implementation.
>> I've seen Andrey even sent benchmark results for a new serialization, will
>> ping him about this.
>>
>> 5. Thanks for the clarification. I had a wrong understanding of strick
>> mode.
>>
>>
>> вт, 29 дек. 2020 г. в 19:32, Valentin Kulichenko <
>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
>>
>> > Hi Mike,
>> >
>> > Thanks for providing your feedback. Please see my comments below.
>> >
>> > I would also encourage you to go through the IEP-54 [1] - it has a lot
>> of
>> > detail on the topic.
>> >
>> > [1]
>> >
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
>> >
>> > -Val
>> >
>> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:22 PM Michael Cherkasov <
>> > michael.cherkasov@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi all,
>> > >
>> > > I reviewed the mail thread and proposal page and I still don't fully
>> > > understand what is going to be changed, I would really appreciate it
>> if
>> > you
>> > > will answer a few questions:
>> > >
>> > > 1. Are you going to leave only one schema per cache? if so, will be
>> there
>> > > an option to have a table with arbitrary objects(pure KV case)?
>> > >
>> >
>> > My opinion is that KV case should be natively supported. I think this
>> still
>> > needs to be thought over, my current view on this is that we should have
>> > separate APIs for KV and more generic storages. KV storage can be
>> > implemented as a "table" with two BLOB fields where we will store
>> > serialized key-value pairs. That would imply deserialization on read,
>> but I
>> > believe this is OK for KV use cases. I'm happy to hear other ideas
>> though
>> > :)
>> >
>> >
>> > > 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0 have to define schema?
>> > SchemaBuilder
>> > > and SQL only? Is there an option to put the schema definition to the
>> > > configuration?(I really don't like this, I would prefer to have
>> > > separate scripts to create schemas)
>> > >
>> >
>> > There will be no such thing as a static configuration in the first
>> place.
>> > Tables and schemas are created in runtime. Even if there is a file
>> provided
>> > on node startup, this file is only applied in the scope of the 'start'
>> > operation. All configurations will be stored in a meta storage
>> available to
>> > all nodes, as opposed to individual files.
>> >
>> >
>> > > 3. Is there a way to change field type? if yes, can it be done in
>> > runtime?
>> > >
>> >
>> > Absolutely! IEP-54 has a whole section about schema evolution.
>> >
>> >
>> > > 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going to be re-worked too, is there
>> any
>> > > IEP for this?
>> > >
>> >
>> > BinaryMarshaller as a tool for arbitrary object serialization will be
>> gone,
>> > but we will reuse a lot of its concept to implement an internal tuple
>> > serialization mechanism. IEP-54 has the description of the proposed data
>> > format.
>> >
>> >
>> > > 5. I don't like automatic schema evaluation when a new field is added
>> > > automatically on record put, so is there a way to prohibit this
>> behavior?
>> > >  I think all schema changes should be done only explicitly except
>> initial
>> > > schema creation.
>> > >
>> >
>> > The way I see it is that we should have two modes: schema-first and
>> > schema-last. Schema-first means exactly what you've described - schemas
>> are
>> > defined and updated explicitly by the user. In the schema-last mode,
>> > the user does not deal with schemas, as they are inferred from the data
>> > inserted into tables. We should definitely not mix these modes - it has
>> to
>> > be one or another. And it probably makes sense to discuss which mode
>> should
>> > be the default one.
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Mike.
>> > >
>> > > пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey Mashenkov <
>> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
>> > > >:
>> > >
>> > > > Hi, Igniters.
>> > > >
>> > > > We all know that the current QueryEntity API is not convenient and
>> > needs
>> > > to
>> > > > be reworked.
>> > > > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema configuration public API
>> for
>> > > > Ignite 3.0.
>> > > >
>> > > > New schema configuration uses Builder pattern, which looks more
>> > > comfortable
>> > > > to use.
>> > > >
>> > > > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package with the API itself, and
>> a
>> > > draft
>> > > > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
>> > > > and a test that demonstrates how the API could be used.
>> > > >
>> > > > Please note:
>> > > >
>> > > > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with static factory methods.
>> > > > * The implementation is decoupled and can be easily extracted to
>> > separate
>> > > > module if we decide to do so.
>> > > > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are missed, they will be added
>> > > lately
>> > > > in separate tickes.
>> > > > * Index configuration extends marker interface that makes possible
>> to
>> > > > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
>> > > > Hopfully, we could add a persistent geo-indices support in future.
>> > > > * Supposedly, current table schema can be changed via builder-like
>> > > > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See
>> 'TableModificationBuilder'
>> > > for
>> > > > details.
>> > > > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have 'toBuilder()' converter for
>> that
>> > > > purpose as it is a Schema Manager responsibility to create mutator
>> > > objects
>> > > > from the current schema,
>> > > > but implementing the Schema manager is out of scope and will be
>> > designed
>> > > > within the next task.
>> > > > * Interfaces implementations are out of scope. I did not intend to
>> > merge
>> > > > them right now, but for test/demostration purposes.
>> > > >
>> > > > It is NOT the final version and some may be changed before the first
>> > > > release of course.
>> > > > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed with this approach or
>> some
>> > > > issues should be resolved at first.
>> > > >
>> > > > Any thoughts or objections?
>> > > > Are interfaces good enough to be merged within the current ticket?
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <ju...@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
>> > > > > 2. It requires adding new types to the internal representation,
>> > > protocol,
>> > > > > e.t.c.
>> > > > > 3. internal representation should be the same as we keep sign
>> types.
>> > So
>> > > > it
>> > > > > will not requires more memory
>> > > > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such types for platforms
>> which
>> > not
>> > > > > support unsigned types. For example, a user could derive -6 value
>> in
>> > > Java
>> > > > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits perspective will be
>> right). I
>> > > > think
>> > > > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such cases, especially it
>> will be
>> > > bad
>> > > > > for unsigned long when we require returns BigInteger type.
>> > > > > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix for new types like a
>> > > '250u' -
>> > > > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
>> > > > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive comparison logic for
>> > indexes
>> > > > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for expressions. I think it
>> not
>> > > > > possible for the current H2 engine and probably possible for the
>> new
>> > > > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from anybody who involved in
>> this
>> > > part
>> > > > >
>> > > > > WDYT?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey Goncharuk <
>> > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
>> > > > > >:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0: once we the actual
>> > type
>> > > > > > information, we can make proper runtime adjustments and
>> conversions
>> > > to
>> > > > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will be just a bit more
>> > > expensive.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <
>> ptupitsyn@apache.org
>> > >:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
>> > > > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons and so on are
>> broken
>> > > > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned this somewhere
>> > above.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document that SQL is not
>> supported
>> > on
>> > > > > those
>> > > > > > > types,
>> > > > > > > end of story.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
>> > > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable request. I thought about
>> > this
>> > > > > when
>> > > > > > I
>> > > > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add these types right
>> > > away.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with
>> .NET
>> > > and
>> > > > > C++
>> > > > > > :)
>> > > > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually works as expected, it
>> needs
>> > > > some
>> > > > > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns are false):
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >    - It's true that equality check works properly, but for
>> SQL
>> > > > range
>> > > > > > > >    queries it will break unless some special care is taken
>> on
>> > > Java
>> > > > > > side:
>> > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will be converted to
>> -1,
>> > > > which
>> > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we don't have unsigned types
>> > now,
>> > > I
>> > > > > > doubt
>> > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > >    works.
>> > > > > > > >    - There is an obvious cross-platform data loss when
>> > > "intuitive"
>> > > > > type
>> > > > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8 corresponds to byte type in
>> > > .NET,
>> > > > > but
>> > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have to use short type in
>> > Java,
>> > > > and
>> > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > > >    will also need to take care of the range check during
>> > > > > > serialization).
>> > > > > > > I
>> > > > > > > >    think we can even allow to try to deserialize a value
>> into
>> > > > > arbitrary
>> > > > > > > > type,
>> > > > > > > >    but throw an exception if the range is out of bounds.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
>> > > > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once all the details
>> are
>> > > > settled
>> > > > > > > here?
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey Mashenkov <
>> > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't be treated
>> correctly
>> > > for
>> > > > > now
>> > > > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > I think we could make "true" support for unsigned types,
>> but
>> > > they
>> > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > > have
>> > > > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
>> > > > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map uint64 to Java long
>> > > > > primitive,
>> > > > > > > but
>> > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > BigInteger only.
>> > > > > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64 to Java long, but
>> treat
>> > > > > negative
>> > > > > > > > > values in a different way to preserve correct ordering.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > These limitations will affect only mixed environments when
>> > .Net
>> > > > and
>> > > > > > > Java
>> > > > > > > > > used to access the data.
>> > > > > > > > > Will this solution address your issues?
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
>> > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with
>> > .NET
>> > > > and
>> > > > > > C++
>> > > > > > > :)
>> > > > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as cache keys and
>> values,
>> > as
>> > > > > fields
>> > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > properties,
>> > > > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y clauses) - it
>> works
>> > > > > > > transparently
>> > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > > the users.
>> > > > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats those values as
>> > > > corresponding
>> > > > > > > signed
>> > > > > > > > > > types.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in some cases only
>> because
>> > > > there
>> > > > > > are
>> > > > > > > no
>> > > > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
>> > > > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very simple change to the
>> > > protocol
>> > > > -
>> > > > > > add
>> > > > > > > > type
>> > > > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as signed
>> counterparts.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
>> > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise representation
>> is
>> > > the
>> > > > > > same)
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a uByte field and
>> map
>> > it
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > > > 'uint8'
>> > > > > > > > > > > column.
>> > > > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to "250" and put the
>> object
>> > > > into a
>> > > > > > > > table,
>> > > > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a single byte 'int8'
>> > column.
>> > > > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it to directly the
>> Java
>> > > > > object
>> > > > > > > > field
>> > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8 type to Java
>> 'short'
>> > > type
>> > > > > > > > > > > because the one expected to see "250" as a value which
>> > > > doesn't
>> > > > > > fit
>> > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > signed type.
>> > > > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a BigInteger field in
>> Java.
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat column value as Java
>> 'byte'
>> > as
>> > > > is,
>> > > > > > > > because
>> > > > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a negative value, so it
>> should
>> > > be
>> > > > > cast
>> > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > short
>> > > > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger for uint64)
>> > > > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will require a different
>> > > comparator.
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
>> > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a good idea.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the simple approach I
>> > > > described?
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing range for unsigned
>> types
>> > > > then
>> > > > > we
>> > > > > > > > could
>> > > > > > > > > > > add a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on schema level
>> (like
>> > > > > > nullability
>> > > > > > > > > flag)
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types in storage.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate storage type-system
>> and
>> > > > binary
>> > > > > > > > > protocol
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of type will match 1 to
>> 1
>> > > with
>> > > > > > > storage
>> > > > > > > > > > > (native)
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > type.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either have a separate type
>> id
>> > or
>> > > > > treat
>> > > > > > > > > > > serialized
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed or unsigned
>> flag).
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever foresee the
>> consequences
>> > of
>> > > > > using
>> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > types.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned types perfectly
>> works
>> > > > with
>> > > > > > some
>> > > > > > > > > > > database,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite successor confession
>> with
>> > our
>> > > > > > > "native"
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he can use the power of
>> > Ignite
>> > > > > > Compute
>> > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > > > > > Java
>> > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either fail to use his
>> > unsigned
>> > > > data
>> > > > > > on
>> > > > > > > > Java
>> > > > > > > > > > due
>> > > > > > > > > > > > or
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due to natural Java type
>> > system
>> > > > > > > > limitations
>> > > > > > > > > > > e.g.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively supported types with
>> possible
>> > > > value
>> > > > > > > > ranges
>> > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is what trade-off we found
>> > > > > acceptable:
>> > > > > > > > > > narrowing
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use types of wider range on
>> > > > systems
>> > > > > > like
>> > > > > > > > > Java.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor Sapego <
>> > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
>> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so hard to implement
>> > > > > comparison
>> > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not seem to be a
>> big
>> > > issue
>> > > > > > from
>> > > > > > > my
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned types from Java - I
>> > > think,
>> > > > > if
>> > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > user
>> > > > > > > > > > > uses
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to interact with it
>> from
>> > > Java
>> > > > he
>> > > > > > > knows
>> > > > > > > > > > what
>> > > > > > > > > > > he
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from platforms where
>> they
>> > > have
>> > > > > > native
>> > > > > > > > > > support
>> > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > widely
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where users currently
>> > have
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > > make a
>> > > > > > > > > > > manual
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > type
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > casting
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using unsigned types when they
>> > use
>> > > > > > Ignite.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
>> > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for those types
>> > (basically,
>> > > > just
>> > > > > > add
>> > > > > > > > > more
>> > > > > > > > > > > type
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise
>> > > representation
>> > > > > is
>> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > same)
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned integers, so
>> we
>> > can
>> > > > > > simply
>> > > > > > > > say
>> > > > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative comparison is not
>> > supported
>> > > > in
>> > > > > > SQL
>> > > > > > > > > > > (equality
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM Andrey
>> Mashenkov
>> > <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have i8 or int8
>> instead of
>> > > > > > Integer.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't address the issue.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types should be portable
>> > across
>> > > > > > > different
>> > > > > > > > > > > systems
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type support.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is that unsigned types
>> > cover
>> > > > > > > different
>> > > > > > > > > > > ranges.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to introduce a uLong.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big deal to add uLong
>> > type
>> > > > > > support
>> > > > > > > > at
>> > > > > > > > > > > > storage
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and then use it in
>> e.g.
>> > > > .Net
>> > > > > > > only.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support it in e.g. Java?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range is about
>> (2^-63
>> > ..
>> > > > > 2^63)
>> > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > uLong
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > range
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to restrict range to
>> (0
>> > ..
>> > > > > > 2^63).
>> > > > > > > > This
>> > > > > > > > > > > > allows
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but doesn't look
>> like
>> > a
>> > > > > 'real'
>> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > uLong
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse when the user will
>> use
>> > > > > uByte,
>> > > > > > as
>> > > > > > > > > > > > limitation
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map unsigned types
>> to a
>> > > > type
>> > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > wider
>> > > > > > > > > > > type
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative values. E.g.
>> uLong to
>> > > > > > > BigInteger.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive Java type for
>> Long
>> > > here.
>> > > > > > > > However,
>> > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > still
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8 bytes, but
>> have a
>> > > > > special
>> > > > > > > > > > comparator
>> > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid unwanted
>> > deserialization.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Pavel
>> Tupitsyn
>> > <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of "long, short,
>> byte"
>> > in
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > > protocol
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style, which is concise
>> and
>> > > > > > > unambiguous:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM Igor
>> Sapego <
>> > > > > > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support that. Also, if we are
>> > > aiming
>> > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger platform-independance,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may want to support
>> > > > > bit-notation
>> > > > > > > > > (int32,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a different type on
>> > different
>> > > > > > > platforms
>> > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often when using ODBC for
>> > > > example).
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM Pavel
>> > > Tupitsyn
>> > > > <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should support unsigned
>> data
>> > > > types:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have them, but many
>> other
>> > > > > languages
>> > > > > > > do,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing number of thin
>> > clients
>> > > > > this
>> > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > important.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in current Ignite.NET
>> > > > > implementation
>> > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > > > > > store
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain when it comes
>> to
>> > > > > > metadata,
>> > > > > > > > > binary
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to deserialize int as uint
>> > when
>> > > > you
>> > > > > > > have
>> > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > > > > class,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM
>> Andrey
>> > > > > > Mashenkov <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both serializers use
>> > > reflection
>> > > > > > API.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will allow users to
>> > configure
>> > > > > > static
>> > > > > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > > > > > > > along
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still need to
>> validate
>> > > user
>> > > > > > > classes
>> > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > > > > > > > client
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in the grid  and
>> > > > reflection
>> > > > > > API
>> > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > only
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few articles on the
>> > > internet
>> > > > > on
>> > > > > > > how
>> > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > enable
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task for supporting
>> > > GraalVM,
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > maybe
>> > > > > > > > > > > > someone
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM will suggest a
>> > > > solution
>> > > > > > or
>> > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > > > proper
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is found, we could
>> > allow
>> > > > > users
>> > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > write
>> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > own
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I don't think it is
>> a
>> > > good
>> > > > > idea
>> > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > expose
>> > > > > > > > > > > > any
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the public.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM
>> Denis
>> > > > Magda <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the update,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the serializers take
>> into
>> > > > > > > > consideration
>> > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native-image-generation feature of
>> > > > GraalVM?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current binary
>> marshaller,
>> > we
>> > > > > can't
>> > > > > > > even
>> > > > > > > > > > > > generate
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using our thin client
>> > > APIs.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM
>> > Andrey
>> > > > > > > Mashenkov
>> > > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to continue discussion
>> of
>> > > > IEP-54
>> > > > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who is interested
>> > had a
>> > > > > > chance
>> > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > get
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to ask
>> > > > questions
>> > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > share
>> > > > > > > > > > > your
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a prototype of
>> > > serializer
>> > > > > [2]
>> > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > data
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I compared 2
>> approaches
>> > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > (de)serialize
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java reflection/unsafe API
>> and
>> > > > > similar
>> > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > one
>> > > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second one generates
>> > > serializer
>> > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > > > particular
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > user
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library for compilation.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows better results
>> in
>> > > > > > > benchmarks.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go with it as
>> > default
>> > > > > > > serializer
>> > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > have
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation as a fallback if
>> > > someone
>> > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > > have
>> > > > > > > > > > > > issues
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of tasks
>> under
>> > the
>> > > > > > > umbrella
>> > > > > > > > > > ticket
>> > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to create more
>> > tickets
>> > > > for
>> > > > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > > > > > > > manager
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation, but would like
>> to
>> > > > clarify
>> > > > > > > some
>> > > > > > > > > > > details.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought schemaManager on each
>> > node
>> > > > > should
>> > > > > > > > held:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping of "schema
>> > > version"
>> > > > > <-->
>> > > > > > > > > > validated
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > local
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide schema changes
>> > > > history.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client side. Before any
>> > > > key-value
>> > > > > > API
>> > > > > > > > > > > operation
>> > > > > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a given key-value
>> pair.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no local-mapping
>> exists
>> > > > for a
>> > > > > > > given
>> > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema has a more
>> > recent
>> > > > > > version
>> > > > > > > > > then
>> > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be validated against the
>> > > latest
>> > > > > > > version
>> > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > local
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object doesn't fit to the
>> > > latest
>> > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > > > > then
>> > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > depends
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail the operation
>> > > > ('strict'
>> > > > > > > mode)
>> > > > > > > > > or
>> > > > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > new
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a new schema version
>> > > should
>> > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > > propagated
>> > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server side we usually
>> have
>> > no
>> > > > > > > key-value
>> > > > > > > > > > > classes
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change history is
>> > available
>> > > > > and a
>> > > > > > > > tuple
>> > > > > > > > > > has
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to upgrade any
>> > > received
>> > > > > > tuple
>> > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > last
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow nodes to
>> send
>> > > > > key-value
>> > > > > > > > pairs
>> > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't receive a schema
>> update
>> > > > yet)
>> > > > > > > > without
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > reverting
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node with newer
>> classes.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the
>> > > same?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
>> > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM
>> > Ivan
>> > > > > > > Pavlukhin
>> > > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not ignore history.
>> We
>> > > had
>> > > > a
>> > > > > > > thread
>> > > > > > > > > [1]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > many
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can resume it.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00,
>> Denis
>> > > > Magda
>> > > > > <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks for
>> > > > > > explaining.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we need to have a
>> > > > separate
>> > > > > > > > > > discussion
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms substitution.
>> > I'll
>> > > > > > > appreciate
>> > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > if
>> > > > > > > > > > > > you
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing pointers to any
>> > relevant
>> > > > IEPs
>> > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > reasoning
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01
>> PM
>> > > > > Valentin
>> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
>> > > > > > > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the wording in the
>> IEP
>> > > is
>> > > > a
>> > > > > > > little
>> > > > > > > > > bit
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you should not create
>> > > nested
>> > > > > > POJOs,
>> > > > > > > > but
>> > > > > > > > > > > > rather
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO that is mapped
>> to
>> > a
>> > > > > > > particular
>> > > > > > > > > > > schema.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > In
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not supported.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this correct?
>> Please
>> > > let
>> > > > me
>> > > > > > > know
>> > > > > > > > if
>> > > > > > > > > > I'm
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > missing
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the "cache" term, I
>> > agree
>> > > > > that
>> > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can replace it
>> with.
>> > > > "Table"
>> > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > tightly
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional in our
>> case.
>> > Do
>> > > > you
>> > > > > > want
>> > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > create a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at
>> 4:37 PM
>> > > > Denis
>> > > > > > > > Magda <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked the IEP again
>> > and
>> > > > > have a
>> > > > > > > few
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > questions.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects
>> and
>> > > > > > > collections
>> > > > > > > > > are
>> > > > > > > > > > > not
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should
>> either
>> > be
>> > > > > > inlined
>> > > > > > > > > into
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL
>> code
>> > > > > snippet
>> > > > > > > > > showing
>> > > > > > > > > > > how
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to work?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep using the
>> terms
>> > > > > "cache"
>> > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > "table"
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right time to discuss
>> an
>> > > > > > alternate
>> > > > > > > > name
>> > > > > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the "table"
>> > should
>> > > > stay
>> > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one of the
>> > primary
>> > > > APIs
>> > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at
>> 12:26
>> > PM
>> > > > > > > Valentin
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your point. I
>> agree
>> > > that
>> > > > > with
>> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > automatic
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last territory.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we support
>> > > > automatic
>> > > > > > > > > > evolution,
>> > > > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a cache without
>> > > schema
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > inferring
>> > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other words, we can have
>> > both
>> > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"
>> > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you
>> think?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at
>> 5:59
>> > > AM
>> > > > > > Alexey
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
>> > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got your
>> > > concern
>> > > > > > now.
>> > > > > > > As
>> > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > terminology, I am
>> > > absolutely
>> > > > > fine
>> > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > > > > changing
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the approach best.
>> > Dynamic
>> > > or
>> > > > > > > > evolving
>> > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > corresponding changes
>> to
>> > > the
>> > > > > IEP
>> > > > > > > once
>> > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > > > > > > > settle
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в
>> > > 11:33,
>> > > > > Ivan
>> > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for your
>> > > answer!
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My understanding is
>> a
>> > > > little
>> > > > > > bit
>> > > > > > > > > > > different.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > definitely should be
>> > > > > possible.
>> > > > > > > But
>> > > > > > > > I
>> > > > > > > > > > see
>> > > > > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > main
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is updated".
>> I
>> > > > treat a
>> > > > > > > > common
>> > > > > > > > > > SQL
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data
>> manipulation
>> > > > > > operations
>> > > > > > > > are
>> > > > > > > > > > > > clearly
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > interesting
>> > capabilities,
>> > > > > e.g.
>> > > > > > > > > > preventing
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data
>> > operations,
>> > > > > > > > restricting
>> > > > > > > > > > > user
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first means
>> > that
>> > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > > > > exists
>> > > > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is compliant with
>> it -
>> > > > that's
>> > > > > > > > exactly
>> > > > > > > > > > > what
>> > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last
>> approach
>> > > > > > mentioned
>> > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > [1]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > also
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is
>> > > inferred
>> > > > > from
>> > > > > > > > data.
>> > > > > > > > > > Is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > not
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing approach?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would like to
>> > say,
>> > > > that
>> > > > > > my
>> > > > > > > > main
>> > > > > > > > > > > > concern
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > terminology. And I
>> > > suppose
>> > > > if
>> > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > confuses
>> > > > > > > > > > > > me
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused as well. My
>> > > > feeling
>> > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > closer
>> > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47
>> > > GMT+03:00,
>> > > > > > > Valentin
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
>> > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an
>> issue
>> > > with
>> > > > > > that.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance and all
>> the
>> > > > stored
>> > > > > > data
>> > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > compliant
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is proposed. There
>> > are
>> > > no
>> > > > > > > > > > restrictions
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5,
>> 2020
>> > at
>> > > > 9:52
>> > > > > > PM
>> > > > > > > > Ivan
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> vololo100@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit
>> > > > confused
>> > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1]
>> (see
>> > > > part
>> > > > > X
>> > > > > > > Semi
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Structured
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic
>> schema"
>> > > > > approach
>> > > > > > > as a
>> > > > > > > > > > kind
>> > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53
>> > > > GMT+03:00,
>> > > > > > > Denis
>> > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could
>> > you
>> > > > > please
>> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
>> > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use
>> > case
>> > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)?
>> If
>> > so,
>> > > > > what
>> > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > missing
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
>> > > > > > understanding,
>> > > > > > > > all
>> > > > > > > > > > you
>> > > > > > > > > > > > need
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing
>> > > > something?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point,
>> yes,
>> > if
>> > > > all
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > ORM
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > internally,
>> then
>> > > they
>> > > > > can
>> > > > > > > > easily
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > translate
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE
>> > > > statement
>> > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > > lists
>> > > > > > > > > > > all
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data
>> > > > integration
>> > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > already
>> > > > > > > > > > > > based
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be improved
>> > once
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > schema-first
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of
>> > > > usability
>> > > > > > > > issues.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would revise
>> the
>> > > > > > Hibernate
>> > > > > > > > > > > > integration
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't
>> say
>> > if
>> > > > it's
>> > > > > > > used
>> > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > > > lot
>> > > > > > > > > > > > but
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael
>> Pollind,
>> > > I'll
>> > > > > > loop
>> > > > > > > > you
>> > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > long
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support
>> for
>> > > > > > Micornaut
>> > > > > > > > > Data
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came across
>> some
>> > > > > > challenges.
>> > > > > > > > > Just
>> > > > > > > > > > > > watch
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in
>> Ignite
>> > > 3.0.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31,
>> > 2020
>> > > > at
>> > > > > > 5:11
>> > > > > > > > PM
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally
>> > > speaking, I
>> > > > > > > believe
>> > > > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the
>> > issue
>> > > > if
>> > > > > > > > > duplicate
>> > > > > > > > > > > > fields
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> because
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be
>> > > > created
>> > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > > > cache,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > not
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the
>> > > schema
>> > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > > > define
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > whether
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which
>> fields
>> > > are
>> > > > > > > included
>> > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > > > case
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be
>> > > > compliant
>> > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > this,
>> > > > > > > > > > > so
>> > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a
>> > set
>> > > of
>> > > > > > > > records,
>> > > > > > > > > > > rather
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could
>> > you
>> > > > > please
>> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
>> > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use
>> > case
>> > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)?
>> If
>> > so,
>> > > > > what
>> > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > missing
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
>> > > > > > understanding,
>> > > > > > > > all
>> > > > > > > > > > you
>> > > > > > > > > > > > need
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing
>> > > > something?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug
>> 31,
>> > > 2020
>> > > > at
>> > > > > > > 2:08
>> > > > > > > > PM
>> > > > > > > > > > > Denis
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> dmagda@apache.org>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would
>> propose
>> > > > > adding
>> > > > > > > > > another
>> > > > > > > > > > > > point
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to
>> the
>> > > ORM
>> > > > > > > > frameworks
>> > > > > > > > > > > such
>> > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently,
>> the
>> > > > > storage
>> > > > > > > > engine
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > requires
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones
>> that
>> > > > > > > complicate
>> > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > usage
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially
>> if
>> > a
>> > > > key
>> > > > > > > object
>> > > > > > > > > > > > comprises
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be
>> nice
>> > > if
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > > new
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single
>> entity
>> > > > object
>> > > > > > when
>> > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > > comes
>> > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into
>> a
>> > key
>> > > > and
>> > > > > > > > value.
>> > > > > > > > > > Just
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > want
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the
>> > essential
>> > > > > > public
>> > > > > > > > APIs
>> > > > > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > single-entity
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you
>> > > think?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug
>> 28,
>> > > > 2020
>> > > > > at
>> > > > > > > > 3:50
>> > > > > > > > > PM
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the
>> > big
>> > > > > > changes
>> > > > > > > > > > proposed
>> > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
>> "schema-first
>> > > > > > > approach".
>> > > > > > > > To
>> > > > > > > > > > add
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > more
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this
>> > > change:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please
>> take a
>> > > > look
>> > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > let
>> > > > > > > > > me
>> > > > > > > > > > > > know
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
>> suggestions,
>> > or
>> > > > > > > > objections.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Best regards,
>> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Alexey Goncharuk <al...@gmail.com>]

Mikhail and Igniters,

Thanks for your comments. The questions are reasonable, though I think all
concerns are addressed by the IEP as Val mentioned. I will update the
document according to your questions in the following week or so, so we can
have a constructive discussion further.

ср, 30 дек. 2020 г. в 11:45, Michael Cherkasov <michael.cherkasov@gmail.com
>:

> Hi Val, Andrey,
>
> thank you for clarifying.
>
> I still have a few comments.
>
> 1. one table == one schema. KV vs SQL:
> Looks like all agreed that KV is just a special case of a regular table
> with (blob,blob) schema.
> I worry about the case when the user starts from KV case and later will try
> to expand it and try to leverage SQL for the existing KV table it won't be
> able to do so and will require to reload data. which isn't convenient and
> sometimes not even possible. Is it possible to extract a new field from
> (blob, blob) schema and apply index on it?
>
> 2. Could you please also list all ways of schema definition in the IEP? It
> significant change and I bet the main point of this IEP, everyone hates
> QueryEntities, they are difficult to manage and in general, it's very
> confusing to have a data model(schemas) and node/cluster configuration in
> one place.
>
> So there will be SchemaBuilder and SQL to define schemas, but Andrey also
> mentioned annotations.
>
> I personally against configuration via annotations, while it's convenient
> for development, it difficult to manage because different classes can be
> deployed on different clients/servers nodes and it can lead to
> unpredictable results.
>
> 3. IEP doesn't mention field type changes, only drop/add fields. Field type
> changes are extremely painful right now(if even possible), so it would be
> nice if some scenarios would be supported(like int8->int16, or
> int8->String).
>
> 4. got it, I thought IEP will have more details about the implementation.
> I've seen Andrey even sent benchmark results for a new serialization, will
> ping him about this.
>
> 5. Thanks for the clarification. I had a wrong understanding of strick
> mode.
>
>
> вт, 29 дек. 2020 г. в 19:32, Valentin Kulichenko <
> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
>
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > Thanks for providing your feedback. Please see my comments below.
> >
> > I would also encourage you to go through the IEP-54 [1] - it has a lot of
> > detail on the topic.
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> >
> > -Val
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:22 PM Michael Cherkasov <
> > michael.cherkasov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I reviewed the mail thread and proposal page and I still don't fully
> > > understand what is going to be changed, I would really appreciate it if
> > you
> > > will answer a few questions:
> > >
> > > 1. Are you going to leave only one schema per cache? if so, will be
> there
> > > an option to have a table with arbitrary objects(pure KV case)?
> > >
> >
> > My opinion is that KV case should be natively supported. I think this
> still
> > needs to be thought over, my current view on this is that we should have
> > separate APIs for KV and more generic storages. KV storage can be
> > implemented as a "table" with two BLOB fields where we will store
> > serialized key-value pairs. That would imply deserialization on read,
> but I
> > believe this is OK for KV use cases. I'm happy to hear other ideas though
> > :)
> >
> >
> > > 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0 have to define schema?
> > SchemaBuilder
> > > and SQL only? Is there an option to put the schema definition to the
> > > configuration?(I really don't like this, I would prefer to have
> > > separate scripts to create schemas)
> > >
> >
> > There will be no such thing as a static configuration in the first place.
> > Tables and schemas are created in runtime. Even if there is a file
> provided
> > on node startup, this file is only applied in the scope of the 'start'
> > operation. All configurations will be stored in a meta storage available
> to
> > all nodes, as opposed to individual files.
> >
> >
> > > 3. Is there a way to change field type? if yes, can it be done in
> > runtime?
> > >
> >
> > Absolutely! IEP-54 has a whole section about schema evolution.
> >
> >
> > > 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going to be re-worked too, is there
> any
> > > IEP for this?
> > >
> >
> > BinaryMarshaller as a tool for arbitrary object serialization will be
> gone,
> > but we will reuse a lot of its concept to implement an internal tuple
> > serialization mechanism. IEP-54 has the description of the proposed data
> > format.
> >
> >
> > > 5. I don't like automatic schema evaluation when a new field is added
> > > automatically on record put, so is there a way to prohibit this
> behavior?
> > >  I think all schema changes should be done only explicitly except
> initial
> > > schema creation.
> > >
> >
> > The way I see it is that we should have two modes: schema-first and
> > schema-last. Schema-first means exactly what you've described - schemas
> are
> > defined and updated explicitly by the user. In the schema-last mode,
> > the user does not deal with schemas, as they are inferred from the data
> > inserted into tables. We should definitely not mix these modes - it has
> to
> > be one or another. And it probably makes sense to discuss which mode
> should
> > be the default one.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Mike.
> > >
> > > пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > >
> > > > Hi, Igniters.
> > > >
> > > > We all know that the current QueryEntity API is not convenient and
> > needs
> > > to
> > > > be reworked.
> > > > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema configuration public API for
> > > > Ignite 3.0.
> > > >
> > > > New schema configuration uses Builder pattern, which looks more
> > > comfortable
> > > > to use.
> > > >
> > > > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package with the API itself, and a
> > > draft
> > > > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
> > > > and a test that demonstrates how the API could be used.
> > > >
> > > > Please note:
> > > >
> > > > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with static factory methods.
> > > > * The implementation is decoupled and can be easily extracted to
> > separate
> > > > module if we decide to do so.
> > > > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are missed, they will be added
> > > lately
> > > > in separate tickes.
> > > > * Index configuration extends marker interface that makes possible to
> > > > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
> > > > Hopfully, we could add a persistent geo-indices support in future.
> > > > * Supposedly, current table schema can be changed via builder-like
> > > > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See
> 'TableModificationBuilder'
> > > for
> > > > details.
> > > > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have 'toBuilder()' converter for
> that
> > > > purpose as it is a Schema Manager responsibility to create mutator
> > > objects
> > > > from the current schema,
> > > > but implementing the Schema manager is out of scope and will be
> > designed
> > > > within the next task.
> > > > * Interfaces implementations are out of scope. I did not intend to
> > merge
> > > > them right now, but for test/demostration purposes.
> > > >
> > > > It is NOT the final version and some may be changed before the first
> > > > release of course.
> > > > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed with this approach or
> some
> > > > issues should be resolved at first.
> > > >
> > > > Any thoughts or objections?
> > > > Are interfaces good enough to be merged within the current ticket?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <ju...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
> > > > > 2. It requires adding new types to the internal representation,
> > > protocol,
> > > > > e.t.c.
> > > > > 3. internal representation should be the same as we keep sign
> types.
> > So
> > > > it
> > > > > will not requires more memory
> > > > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such types for platforms which
> > not
> > > > > support unsigned types. For example, a user could derive -6 value
> in
> > > Java
> > > > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits perspective will be right).
> I
> > > > think
> > > > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such cases, especially it will
> be
> > > bad
> > > > > for unsigned long when we require returns BigInteger type.
> > > > > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix for new types like a
> > > '250u' -
> > > > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
> > > > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive comparison logic for
> > indexes
> > > > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for expressions. I think it not
> > > > > possible for the current H2 engine and probably possible for the
> new
> > > > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from anybody who involved in
> this
> > > part
> > > > >
> > > > > WDYT?
> > > > >
> > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > > > > >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0: once we the actual
> > type
> > > > > > information, we can make proper runtime adjustments and
> conversions
> > > to
> > > > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will be just a bit more
> > > expensive.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
> > > > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons and so on are broken
> > > > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned this somewhere
> > above.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document that SQL is not supported
> > on
> > > > > those
> > > > > > > types,
> > > > > > > end of story.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable request. I thought about
> > this
> > > > > when
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add these types right
> > > away.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with
> .NET
> > > and
> > > > > C++
> > > > > > :)
> > > > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually works as expected, it
> needs
> > > > some
> > > > > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns are false):
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >    - It's true that equality check works properly, but for
> SQL
> > > > range
> > > > > > > >    queries it will break unless some special care is taken on
> > > Java
> > > > > > side:
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will be converted to
> -1,
> > > > which
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we don't have unsigned types
> > now,
> > > I
> > > > > > doubt
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > >    works.
> > > > > > > >    - There is an obvious cross-platform data loss when
> > > "intuitive"
> > > > > type
> > > > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8 corresponds to byte type in
> > > .NET,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have to use short type in
> > Java,
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > >    will also need to take care of the range check during
> > > > > > serialization).
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > >    think we can even allow to try to deserialize a value into
> > > > > arbitrary
> > > > > > > > type,
> > > > > > > >    but throw an exception if the range is out of bounds.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
> > > > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once all the details are
> > > > settled
> > > > > > > here?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't be treated
> correctly
> > > for
> > > > > now
> > > > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think we could make "true" support for unsigned types,
> but
> > > they
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
> > > > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map uint64 to Java long
> > > > > primitive,
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > BigInteger only.
> > > > > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64 to Java long, but
> treat
> > > > > negative
> > > > > > > > > values in a different way to preserve correct ordering.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > These limitations will affect only mixed environments when
> > .Net
> > > > and
> > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > > used to access the data.
> > > > > > > > > Will this solution address your issues?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with
> > .NET
> > > > and
> > > > > > C++
> > > > > > > :)
> > > > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as cache keys and values,
> > as
> > > > > fields
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > properties,
> > > > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y clauses) - it works
> > > > > > > transparently
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > the users.
> > > > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats those values as
> > > > corresponding
> > > > > > > signed
> > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in some cases only
> because
> > > > there
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> > > > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very simple change to the
> > > protocol
> > > > -
> > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as signed counterparts.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise representation
> is
> > > the
> > > > > > same)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a uByte field and
> map
> > it
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > 'uint8'
> > > > > > > > > > > column.
> > > > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to "250" and put the
> object
> > > > into a
> > > > > > > > table,
> > > > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a single byte 'int8'
> > column.
> > > > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it to directly the
> Java
> > > > > object
> > > > > > > > field
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8 type to Java
> 'short'
> > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > because the one expected to see "250" as a value which
> > > > doesn't
> > > > > > fit
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > signed type.
> > > > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a BigInteger field in Java.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat column value as Java
> 'byte'
> > as
> > > > is,
> > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a negative value, so it
> should
> > > be
> > > > > cast
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > short
> > > > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger for uint64)
> > > > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will require a different
> > > comparator.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a good idea.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the simple approach I
> > > > described?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing range for unsigned
> types
> > > > then
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > > > add a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on schema level (like
> > > > > > nullability
> > > > > > > > > flag)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types in storage.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate storage type-system
> and
> > > > binary
> > > > > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of type will match 1 to 1
> > > with
> > > > > > > storage
> > > > > > > > > > > (native)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > type.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either have a separate type
> id
> > or
> > > > > treat
> > > > > > > > > > > serialized
> > > > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed or unsigned flag).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever foresee the
> consequences
> > of
> > > > > using
> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned types perfectly
> works
> > > > with
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > database,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite successor confession with
> > our
> > > > > > > "native"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he can use the power of
> > Ignite
> > > > > > Compute
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either fail to use his
> > unsigned
> > > > data
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > > > due
> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due to natural Java type
> > system
> > > > > > > > limitations
> > > > > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively supported types with
> possible
> > > > value
> > > > > > > > ranges
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is what trade-off we found
> > > > > acceptable:
> > > > > > > > > > narrowing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use types of wider range on
> > > > systems
> > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > Java.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor Sapego <
> > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so hard to implement
> > > > > comparison
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not seem to be a big
> > > issue
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned types from Java - I
> > > think,
> > > > > if
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to interact with it from
> > > Java
> > > > he
> > > > > > > knows
> > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from platforms where they
> > > have
> > > > > > native
> > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > widely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where users currently
> > have
> > > > to
> > > > > > > make a
> > > > > > > > > > > manual
> > > > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > casting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using unsigned types when they
> > use
> > > > > > Ignite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for those types
> > (basically,
> > > > just
> > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise
> > > representation
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > same)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned integers, so we
> > can
> > > > > > simply
> > > > > > > > say
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative comparison is not
> > supported
> > > > in
> > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > (equality
> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM Andrey
> Mashenkov
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have i8 or int8 instead
> of
> > > > > > Integer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't address the issue.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types should be portable
> > across
> > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > systems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type support.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is that unsigned types
> > cover
> > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > ranges.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to introduce a uLong.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big deal to add uLong
> > type
> > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > storage
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and then use it in
> e.g.
> > > > .Net
> > > > > > > only.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support it in e.g. Java?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range is about (2^-63
> > ..
> > > > > 2^63)
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > range
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to restrict range to
> (0
> > ..
> > > > > > 2^63).
> > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but doesn't look
> like
> > a
> > > > > 'real'
> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse when the user will
> use
> > > > > uByte,
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > limitation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map unsigned types
> to a
> > > > type
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > wider
> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative values. E.g. uLong
> to
> > > > > > > BigInteger.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive Java type for Long
> > > here.
> > > > > > > > However,
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8 bytes, but have
> a
> > > > > special
> > > > > > > > > > comparator
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid unwanted
> > deserialization.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Pavel
> Tupitsyn
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of "long, short, byte"
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style, which is concise and
> > > > > > > unambiguous:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM Igor
> Sapego <
> > > > > > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support that. Also, if we are
> > > aiming
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger platform-independance,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may want to support
> > > > > bit-notation
> > > > > > > > > (int32,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a different type on
> > different
> > > > > > > platforms
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often when using ODBC for
> > > > example).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM Pavel
> > > Tupitsyn
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should support unsigned data
> > > > types:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have them, but many other
> > > > > languages
> > > > > > > do,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing number of thin
> > clients
> > > > > this
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in current Ignite.NET
> > > > > implementation
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain when it comes
> to
> > > > > > metadata,
> > > > > > > > > binary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to deserialize int as uint
> > when
> > > > you
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > class,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM Andrey
> > > > > > Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both serializers use
> > > reflection
> > > > > > API.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will allow users to
> > configure
> > > > > > static
> > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > along
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still need to
> validate
> > > user
> > > > > > > classes
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > client
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in the grid  and
> > > > reflection
> > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few articles on the
> > > internet
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task for supporting
> > > GraalVM,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > maybe
> > > > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM will suggest a
> > > > solution
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is found, we could
> > allow
> > > > > users
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I don't think it is a
> > > good
> > > > > idea
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > expose
> > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the public.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM Denis
> > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the update,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the serializers take
> into
> > > > > > > > consideration
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native-image-generation feature of
> > > > GraalVM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current binary marshaller,
> > we
> > > > > can't
> > > > > > > even
> > > > > > > > > > > > generate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using our thin client
> > > APIs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM
> > Andrey
> > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to continue discussion
> of
> > > > IEP-54
> > > > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who is interested
> > had a
> > > > > > chance
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to ask
> > > > questions
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > share
> > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a prototype of
> > > serializer
> > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I compared 2
> approaches
> > > to
> > > > > > > > > > (de)serialize
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java reflection/unsafe API
> and
> > > > > similar
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second one generates
> > > serializer
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library for compilation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows better results
> in
> > > > > > > benchmarks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go with it as
> > default
> > > > > > > serializer
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation as a fallback if
> > > someone
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of tasks under
> > the
> > > > > > > umbrella
> > > > > > > > > > ticket
> > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to create more
> > tickets
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > manager
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation, but would like to
> > > > clarify
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > details.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought schemaManager on each
> > node
> > > > > should
> > > > > > > > held:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping of "schema
> > > version"
> > > > > <-->
> > > > > > > > > > validated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide schema changes
> > > > history.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client side. Before any
> > > > key-value
> > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > operation
> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a given key-value
> pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no local-mapping
> exists
> > > > for a
> > > > > > > given
> > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema has a more
> > recent
> > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be validated against the
> > > latest
> > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object doesn't fit to the
> > > latest
> > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > depends
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail the operation
> > > > ('strict'
> > > > > > > mode)
> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a new schema version
> > > should
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > propagated
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server side we usually
> have
> > no
> > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > classes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change history is
> > available
> > > > > and a
> > > > > > > > tuple
> > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to upgrade any
> > > received
> > > > > > tuple
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > last
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow nodes to send
> > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > pairs
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't receive a schema
> update
> > > > yet)
> > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > reverting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node with newer
> classes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the
> > > same?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM
> > Ivan
> > > > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not ignore history.
> We
> > > had
> > > > a
> > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can resume it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00,
> Denis
> > > > Magda
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks for
> > > > > > explaining.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we need to have a
> > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms substitution.
> > I'll
> > > > > > > appreciate
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing pointers to any
> > relevant
> > > > IEPs
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > reasoning
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01
> PM
> > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the wording in the
> IEP
> > > is
> > > > a
> > > > > > > little
> > > > > > > > > bit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you should not create
> > > nested
> > > > > > POJOs,
> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO that is mapped
> to
> > a
> > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this correct?
> Please
> > > let
> > > > me
> > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the "cache" term, I
> > agree
> > > > > that
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can replace it with.
> > > > "Table"
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > tightly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional in our case.
> > Do
> > > > you
> > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > create a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37
> PM
> > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked the IEP again
> > and
> > > > > have a
> > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > > > questions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects
> and
> > > > > > > collections
> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should
> either
> > be
> > > > > > inlined
> > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL
> code
> > > > > snippet
> > > > > > > > > showing
> > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to work?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep using the
> terms
> > > > > "cache"
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right time to discuss
> an
> > > > > > alternate
> > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the "table"
> > should
> > > > stay
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one of the
> > primary
> > > > APIs
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at
> 12:26
> > PM
> > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your point. I agree
> > > that
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > automatic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last territory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we support
> > > > automatic
> > > > > > > > > > evolution,
> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a cache without
> > > schema
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > inferring
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other words, we can have
> > both
> > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you
> think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at
> 5:59
> > > AM
> > > > > > Alexey
> > > > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got your
> > > concern
> > > > > > now.
> > > > > > > As
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > terminology, I am
> > > absolutely
> > > > > fine
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the approach best.
> > Dynamic
> > > or
> > > > > > > > evolving
> > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > corresponding changes
> to
> > > the
> > > > > IEP
> > > > > > > once
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > settle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в
> > > 11:33,
> > > > > Ivan
> > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for your
> > > answer!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My understanding is a
> > > > little
> > > > > > bit
> > > > > > > > > > > different.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > definitely should be
> > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is updated". I
> > > > treat a
> > > > > > > > common
> > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data manipulation
> > > > > > operations
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > clearly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > interesting
> > capabilities,
> > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > preventing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data
> > operations,
> > > > > > > > restricting
> > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first means
> > that
> > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > exists
> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is compliant with it
> -
> > > > that's
> > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last
> approach
> > > > > > mentioned
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is
> > > inferred
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > > data.
> > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing approach?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would like to
> > say,
> > > > that
> > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > terminology. And I
> > > suppose
> > > > if
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > confuses
> > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused as well. My
> > > > feeling
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > closer
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47
> > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an
> issue
> > > with
> > > > > > that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance and all the
> > > > stored
> > > > > > data
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > compliant
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is proposed. There
> > are
> > > no
> > > > > > > > > > restrictions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020
> > at
> > > > 9:52
> > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > Ivan
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit
> > > > confused
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1]
> (see
> > > > part
> > > > > X
> > > > > > > Semi
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Structured
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema"
> > > > > approach
> > > > > > > as a
> > > > > > > > > > kind
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53
> > > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could
> > you
> > > > > please
> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use
> > case
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If
> > so,
> > > > > what
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
> > > > > > understanding,
> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing
> > > > something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes,
> > if
> > > > all
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > ORM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > internally, then
> > > they
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > > easily
> > > > > > > > > > > > > translate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE
> > > > statement
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > lists
> > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data
> > > > integration
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be improved
> > once
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of
> > > > usability
> > > > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would revise
> the
> > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say
> > if
> > > > it's
> > > > > > > used
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael
> Pollind,
> > > I'll
> > > > > > loop
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > long
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support
> for
> > > > > > Micornaut
> > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came across some
> > > > > > challenges.
> > > > > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > > > > > > watch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite
> > > 3.0.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31,
> > 2020
> > > > at
> > > > > > 5:11
> > > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally
> > > speaking, I
> > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the
> > issue
> > > > if
> > > > > > > > > duplicate
> > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be
> > > > created
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > cache,
> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the
> > > schema
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > define
> > > > > > > > > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which
> fields
> > > are
> > > > > > > included
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be
> > > > compliant
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > this,
> > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a
> > set
> > > of
> > > > > > > > records,
> > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could
> > you
> > > > > please
> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use
> > case
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If
> > so,
> > > > > what
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
> > > > > > understanding,
> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing
> > > > something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31,
> > > 2020
> > > > at
> > > > > > > 2:08
> > > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would
> propose
> > > > > adding
> > > > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > > > > point
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to
> the
> > > ORM
> > > > > > > > frameworks
> > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently,
> the
> > > > > storage
> > > > > > > > engine
> > > > > > > > > > > > > requires
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones
> that
> > > > > > > complicate
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially
> if
> > a
> > > > key
> > > > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > > > comprises
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be
> nice
> > > if
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single entity
> > > > object
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > comes
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a
> > key
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > value.
> > > > > > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the
> > essential
> > > > > > public
> > > > > > > > APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > single-entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you
> > > think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug
> 28,
> > > > 2020
> > > > > at
> > > > > > > > 3:50
> > > > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the
> > big
> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > proposed
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> "schema-first
> > > > > > > approach".
> > > > > > > > To
> > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this
> > > change:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please
> take a
> > > > look
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > let
> > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> suggestions,
> > or
> > > > > > > > objections.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Michael Cherkasov <mi...@gmail.com>]

Hi Val, Andrey,

thank you for clarifying.

I still have a few comments.

1. one table == one schema. KV vs SQL:
Looks like all agreed that KV is just a special case of a regular table
with (blob,blob) schema.
I worry about the case when the user starts from KV case and later will try
to expand it and try to leverage SQL for the existing KV table it won't be
able to do so and will require to reload data. which isn't convenient and
sometimes not even possible. Is it possible to extract a new field from
(blob, blob) schema and apply index on it?

2. Could you please also list all ways of schema definition in the IEP? It
significant change and I bet the main point of this IEP, everyone hates
QueryEntities, they are difficult to manage and in general, it's very
confusing to have a data model(schemas) and node/cluster configuration in
one place.

So there will be SchemaBuilder and SQL to define schemas, but Andrey also
mentioned annotations.

I personally against configuration via annotations, while it's convenient
for development, it difficult to manage because different classes can be
deployed on different clients/servers nodes and it can lead to
unpredictable results.

3. IEP doesn't mention field type changes, only drop/add fields. Field type
changes are extremely painful right now(if even possible), so it would be
nice if some scenarios would be supported(like int8->int16, or
int8->String).

4. got it, I thought IEP will have more details about the implementation.
I've seen Andrey even sent benchmark results for a new serialization, will
ping him about this.

5. Thanks for the clarification. I had a wrong understanding of strick mode.


вт, 29 дек. 2020 г. в 19:32, Valentin Kulichenko <
valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:

> Hi Mike,
>
> Thanks for providing your feedback. Please see my comments below.
>
> I would also encourage you to go through the IEP-54 [1] - it has a lot of
> detail on the topic.
>
> [1]
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
>
> -Val
>
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:22 PM Michael Cherkasov <
> michael.cherkasov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I reviewed the mail thread and proposal page and I still don't fully
> > understand what is going to be changed, I would really appreciate it if
> you
> > will answer a few questions:
> >
> > 1. Are you going to leave only one schema per cache? if so, will be there
> > an option to have a table with arbitrary objects(pure KV case)?
> >
>
> My opinion is that KV case should be natively supported. I think this still
> needs to be thought over, my current view on this is that we should have
> separate APIs for KV and more generic storages. KV storage can be
> implemented as a "table" with two BLOB fields where we will store
> serialized key-value pairs. That would imply deserialization on read, but I
> believe this is OK for KV use cases. I'm happy to hear other ideas though
> :)
>
>
> > 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0 have to define schema?
> SchemaBuilder
> > and SQL only? Is there an option to put the schema definition to the
> > configuration?(I really don't like this, I would prefer to have
> > separate scripts to create schemas)
> >
>
> There will be no such thing as a static configuration in the first place.
> Tables and schemas are created in runtime. Even if there is a file provided
> on node startup, this file is only applied in the scope of the 'start'
> operation. All configurations will be stored in a meta storage available to
> all nodes, as opposed to individual files.
>
>
> > 3. Is there a way to change field type? if yes, can it be done in
> runtime?
> >
>
> Absolutely! IEP-54 has a whole section about schema evolution.
>
>
> > 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going to be re-worked too, is there any
> > IEP for this?
> >
>
> BinaryMarshaller as a tool for arbitrary object serialization will be gone,
> but we will reuse a lot of its concept to implement an internal tuple
> serialization mechanism. IEP-54 has the description of the proposed data
> format.
>
>
> > 5. I don't like automatic schema evaluation when a new field is added
> > automatically on record put, so is there a way to prohibit this behavior?
> >  I think all schema changes should be done only explicitly except initial
> > schema creation.
> >
>
> The way I see it is that we should have two modes: schema-first and
> schema-last. Schema-first means exactly what you've described - schemas are
> defined and updated explicitly by the user. In the schema-last mode,
> the user does not deal with schemas, as they are inferred from the data
> inserted into tables. We should definitely not mix these modes - it has to
> be one or another. And it probably makes sense to discuss which mode should
> be the default one.
>
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mike.
> >
> > пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey Mashenkov <
> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > >:
> >
> > > Hi, Igniters.
> > >
> > > We all know that the current QueryEntity API is not convenient and
> needs
> > to
> > > be reworked.
> > > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema configuration public API for
> > > Ignite 3.0.
> > >
> > > New schema configuration uses Builder pattern, which looks more
> > comfortable
> > > to use.
> > >
> > > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package with the API itself, and a
> > draft
> > > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
> > > and a test that demonstrates how the API could be used.
> > >
> > > Please note:
> > >
> > > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with static factory methods.
> > > * The implementation is decoupled and can be easily extracted to
> separate
> > > module if we decide to do so.
> > > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are missed, they will be added
> > lately
> > > in separate tickes.
> > > * Index configuration extends marker interface that makes possible to
> > > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
> > > Hopfully, we could add a persistent geo-indices support in future.
> > > * Supposedly, current table schema can be changed via builder-like
> > > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See 'TableModificationBuilder'
> > for
> > > details.
> > > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have 'toBuilder()' converter for that
> > > purpose as it is a Schema Manager responsibility to create mutator
> > objects
> > > from the current schema,
> > > but implementing the Schema manager is out of scope and will be
> designed
> > > within the next task.
> > > * Interfaces implementations are out of scope. I did not intend to
> merge
> > > them right now, but for test/demostration purposes.
> > >
> > > It is NOT the final version and some may be changed before the first
> > > release of course.
> > > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed with this approach or some
> > > issues should be resolved at first.
> > >
> > > Any thoughts or objections?
> > > Are interfaces good enough to be merged within the current ticket?
> > >
> > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <ju...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
> > > > 2. It requires adding new types to the internal representation,
> > protocol,
> > > > e.t.c.
> > > > 3. internal representation should be the same as we keep sign types.
> So
> > > it
> > > > will not requires more memory
> > > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such types for platforms which
> not
> > > > support unsigned types. For example, a user could derive -6 value in
> > Java
> > > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits perspective will be right). I
> > > think
> > > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such cases, especially it will be
> > bad
> > > > for unsigned long when we require returns BigInteger type.
> > > > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix for new types like a
> > '250u' -
> > > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
> > > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive comparison logic for
> indexes
> > > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for expressions. I think it not
> > > > possible for the current H2 engine and probably possible for the new
> > > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from anybody who involved in this
> > part
> > > >
> > > > WDYT?
> > > >
> > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > >
> > > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0: once we the actual
> type
> > > > > information, we can make proper runtime adjustments and conversions
> > to
> > > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will be just a bit more
> > expensive.
> > > > >
> > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupitsyn@apache.org
> >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
> > > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons and so on are broken
> > > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned this somewhere
> above.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document that SQL is not supported
> on
> > > > those
> > > > > > types,
> > > > > > end of story.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable request. I thought about
> this
> > > > when
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add these types right
> > away.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with .NET
> > and
> > > > C++
> > > > > :)
> > > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually works as expected, it needs
> > > some
> > > > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns are false):
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >    - It's true that equality check works properly, but for SQL
> > > range
> > > > > > >    queries it will break unless some special care is taken on
> > Java
> > > > > side:
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will be converted to -1,
> > > which
> > > > > will
> > > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we don't have unsigned types
> now,
> > I
> > > > > doubt
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > >    works.
> > > > > > >    - There is an obvious cross-platform data loss when
> > "intuitive"
> > > > type
> > > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8 corresponds to byte type in
> > .NET,
> > > > but
> > > > > to
> > > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have to use short type in
> Java,
> > > and
> > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >    will also need to take care of the range check during
> > > > > serialization).
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > >    think we can even allow to try to deserialize a value into
> > > > arbitrary
> > > > > > > type,
> > > > > > >    but throw an exception if the range is out of bounds.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
> > > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once all the details are
> > > settled
> > > > > > here?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't be treated correctly
> > for
> > > > now
> > > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think we could make "true" support for unsigned types, but
> > they
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
> > > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map uint64 to Java long
> > > > primitive,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > BigInteger only.
> > > > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64 to Java long, but treat
> > > > negative
> > > > > > > > values in a different way to preserve correct ordering.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > These limitations will affect only mixed environments when
> .Net
> > > and
> > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > used to access the data.
> > > > > > > > Will this solution address your issues?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with
> .NET
> > > and
> > > > > C++
> > > > > > :)
> > > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as cache keys and values,
> as
> > > > fields
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > properties,
> > > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y clauses) - it works
> > > > > > transparently
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > the users.
> > > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats those values as
> > > corresponding
> > > > > > signed
> > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in some cases only because
> > > there
> > > > > are
> > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> > > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very simple change to the
> > protocol
> > > -
> > > > > add
> > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as signed counterparts.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise representation is
> > the
> > > > > same)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a uByte field and map
> it
> > > to
> > > > > > > 'uint8'
> > > > > > > > > > column.
> > > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to "250" and put the object
> > > into a
> > > > > > > table,
> > > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a single byte 'int8'
> column.
> > > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it to directly the Java
> > > > object
> > > > > > > field
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8 type to Java 'short'
> > type
> > > > > > > > > > because the one expected to see "250" as a value which
> > > doesn't
> > > > > fit
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > signed type.
> > > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a BigInteger field in Java.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat column value as Java 'byte'
> as
> > > is,
> > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a negative value, so it should
> > be
> > > > cast
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > short
> > > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger for uint64)
> > > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will require a different
> > comparator.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a good idea.
> > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the simple approach I
> > > described?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing range for unsigned types
> > > then
> > > > we
> > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > > add a
> > > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on schema level (like
> > > > > nullability
> > > > > > > > flag)
> > > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types in storage.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate storage type-system and
> > > binary
> > > > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of type will match 1 to 1
> > with
> > > > > > storage
> > > > > > > > > > (native)
> > > > > > > > > > > > type.
> > > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either have a separate type id
> or
> > > > treat
> > > > > > > > > > serialized
> > > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed or unsigned flag).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever foresee the consequences
> of
> > > > using
> > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned types perfectly works
> > > with
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > database,
> > > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite successor confession with
> our
> > > > > > "native"
> > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> > > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he can use the power of
> Ignite
> > > > > Compute
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either fail to use his
> unsigned
> > > data
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > > due
> > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due to natural Java type
> system
> > > > > > > limitations
> > > > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively supported types with possible
> > > value
> > > > > > > ranges
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
> > > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is what trade-off we found
> > > > acceptable:
> > > > > > > > > narrowing
> > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use types of wider range on
> > > systems
> > > > > like
> > > > > > > > Java.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor Sapego <
> > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so hard to implement
> > > > comparison
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not seem to be a big
> > issue
> > > > > from
> > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned types from Java - I
> > think,
> > > > if
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to interact with it from
> > Java
> > > he
> > > > > > knows
> > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from platforms where they
> > have
> > > > > native
> > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > widely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where users currently
> have
> > > to
> > > > > > make a
> > > > > > > > > > manual
> > > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > > > casting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using unsigned types when they
> use
> > > > > Ignite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for those types
> (basically,
> > > just
> > > > > add
> > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise
> > representation
> > > > is
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > same)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned integers, so we
> can
> > > > > simply
> > > > > > > say
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative comparison is not
> supported
> > > in
> > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > (equality
> > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM Andrey Mashenkov
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have i8 or int8 instead of
> > > > > Integer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't address the issue.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types should be portable
> across
> > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > systems
> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type support.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is that unsigned types
> cover
> > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > ranges.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to introduce a uLong.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big deal to add uLong
> type
> > > > > support
> > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > storage
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and then use it in e.g.
> > > .Net
> > > > > > only.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support it in e.g. Java?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range is about (2^-63
> ..
> > > > 2^63)
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > range
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to restrict range to (0
> ..
> > > > > 2^63).
> > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but doesn't look like
> a
> > > > 'real'
> > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse when the user will use
> > > > uByte,
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > limitation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map unsigned types to a
> > > type
> > > > of
> > > > > > > wider
> > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative values. E.g. uLong to
> > > > > > BigInteger.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive Java type for Long
> > here.
> > > > > > > However,
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8 bytes, but have a
> > > > special
> > > > > > > > > comparator
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid unwanted
> deserialization.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Pavel Tupitsyn
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of "long, short, byte"
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style, which is concise and
> > > > > > unambiguous:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM Igor Sapego <
> > > > > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support that. Also, if we are
> > aiming
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger platform-independance,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may want to support
> > > > bit-notation
> > > > > > > > (int32,
> > > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a different type on
> different
> > > > > > platforms
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often when using ODBC for
> > > example).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM Pavel
> > Tupitsyn
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should support unsigned data
> > > types:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have them, but many other
> > > > languages
> > > > > > do,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing number of thin
> clients
> > > > this
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in current Ignite.NET
> > > > implementation
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain when it comes to
> > > > > metadata,
> > > > > > > > binary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to deserialize int as uint
> when
> > > you
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > class,
> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM Andrey
> > > > > Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both serializers use
> > reflection
> > > > > API.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will allow users to
> configure
> > > > > static
> > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > along
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still need to validate
> > user
> > > > > > classes
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > client
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in the grid  and
> > > reflection
> > > > > API
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few articles on the
> > internet
> > > > on
> > > > > > how
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task for supporting
> > GraalVM,
> > > > and
> > > > > > > maybe
> > > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM will suggest a
> > > solution
> > > > > or
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is found, we could
> allow
> > > > users
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I don't think it is a
> > good
> > > > idea
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > expose
> > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the public.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM Denis
> > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the update,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the serializers take into
> > > > > > > consideration
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native-image-generation feature of
> > > GraalVM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current binary marshaller,
> we
> > > > can't
> > > > > > even
> > > > > > > > > > > generate
> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using our thin client
> > APIs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM
> Andrey
> > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to continue discussion of
> > > IEP-54
> > > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who is interested
> had a
> > > > > chance
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to ask
> > > questions
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > share
> > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a prototype of
> > serializer
> > > > [2]
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I compared 2 approaches
> > to
> > > > > > > > > (de)serialize
> > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java reflection/unsafe API and
> > > > similar
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second one generates
> > serializer
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library for compilation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows better results in
> > > > > > benchmarks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go with it as
> default
> > > > > > serializer
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation as a fallback if
> > someone
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of tasks under
> the
> > > > > > umbrella
> > > > > > > > > ticket
> > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to create more
> tickets
> > > for
> > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > manager
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation, but would like to
> > > clarify
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > details.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought schemaManager on each
> node
> > > > should
> > > > > > > held:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping of "schema
> > version"
> > > > <-->
> > > > > > > > > validated
> > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide schema changes
> > > history.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client side. Before any
> > > key-value
> > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > operation
> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a given key-value pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no local-mapping exists
> > > for a
> > > > > > given
> > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema has a more
> recent
> > > > > version
> > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be validated against the
> > latest
> > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object doesn't fit to the
> > latest
> > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > depends
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail the operation
> > > ('strict'
> > > > > > mode)
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a new schema version
> > should
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > > propagated
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server side we usually have
> no
> > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > classes
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change history is
> available
> > > > and a
> > > > > > > tuple
> > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to upgrade any
> > received
> > > > > tuple
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > last
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow nodes to send
> > > > key-value
> > > > > > > pairs
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't receive a schema update
> > > yet)
> > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > reverting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node with newer classes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the
> > same?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM
> Ivan
> > > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not ignore history. We
> > had
> > > a
> > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can resume it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00, Denis
> > > Magda
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks for
> > > > > explaining.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we need to have a
> > > separate
> > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms substitution.
> I'll
> > > > > > appreciate
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing pointers to any
> relevant
> > > IEPs
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > reasoning
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM
> > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the wording in the IEP
> > is
> > > a
> > > > > > little
> > > > > > > > bit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you should not create
> > nested
> > > > > POJOs,
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO that is mapped to
> a
> > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this correct? Please
> > let
> > > me
> > > > > > know
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the "cache" term, I
> agree
> > > > that
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can replace it with.
> > > "Table"
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > tightly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional in our case.
> Do
> > > you
> > > > > want
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > create a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM
> > > Denis
> > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked the IEP again
> and
> > > > have a
> > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > > questions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects and
> > > > > > collections
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should either
> be
> > > > > inlined
> > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > schema,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL code
> > > > snippet
> > > > > > > > showing
> > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to work?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep using the terms
> > > > "cache"
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right time to discuss an
> > > > > alternate
> > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the "table"
> should
> > > stay
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one of the
> primary
> > > APIs
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26
> PM
> > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your point. I agree
> > that
> > > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > automatic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last territory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we support
> > > automatic
> > > > > > > > > evolution,
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a cache without
> > schema
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > inferring
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other words, we can have
> both
> > > > > > > > > "schema-first"
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59
> > AM
> > > > > Alexey
> > > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got your
> > concern
> > > > > now.
> > > > > > As
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > terminology, I am
> > absolutely
> > > > fine
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the approach best.
> Dynamic
> > or
> > > > > > > evolving
> > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > corresponding changes to
> > the
> > > > IEP
> > > > > > once
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > settle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в
> > 11:33,
> > > > Ivan
> > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for your
> > answer!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My understanding is a
> > > little
> > > > > bit
> > > > > > > > > > different.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > definitely should be
> > > > possible.
> > > > > > But
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is updated". I
> > > treat a
> > > > > > > common
> > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data manipulation
> > > > > operations
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > clearly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > interesting
> capabilities,
> > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > preventing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data
> operations,
> > > > > > > restricting
> > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first means
> that
> > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > exists
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is compliant with it -
> > > that's
> > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last approach
> > > > > mentioned
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is
> > inferred
> > > > from
> > > > > > > data.
> > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing approach?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would like to
> say,
> > > that
> > > > > my
> > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > terminology. And I
> > suppose
> > > if
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > confuses
> > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused as well. My
> > > feeling
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > closer
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47
> > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an issue
> > with
> > > > > that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance and all the
> > > stored
> > > > > data
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > compliant
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is proposed. There
> are
> > no
> > > > > > > > > restrictions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020
> at
> > > 9:52
> > > > > PM
> > > > > > > Ivan
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit
> > > confused
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > My
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see
> > > part
> > > > X
> > > > > > Semi
> > > > > > > > > > > > Structured
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema"
> > > > approach
> > > > > > as a
> > > > > > > > > kind
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53
> > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could
> you
> > > > please
> > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use
> case
> > > for
> > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If
> so,
> > > > what
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
> > > > > understanding,
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing
> > > something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes,
> if
> > > all
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > ORM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > internally, then
> > they
> > > > can
> > > > > > > easily
> > > > > > > > > > > > translate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE
> > > statement
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > lists
> > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data
> > > integration
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be improved
> once
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of
> > > usability
> > > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would revise the
> > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say
> if
> > > it's
> > > > > > used
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind,
> > I'll
> > > > > loop
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > long
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support for
> > > > > Micornaut
> > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came across some
> > > > > challenges.
> > > > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > > > > > watch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite
> > 3.0.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31,
> 2020
> > > at
> > > > > 5:11
> > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally
> > speaking, I
> > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the
> issue
> > > if
> > > > > > > > duplicate
> > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be
> > > created
> > > > > for
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > cache,
> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the
> > schema
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > > define
> > > > > > > > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which fields
> > are
> > > > > > included
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be
> > > compliant
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > this,
> > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a
> set
> > of
> > > > > > > records,
> > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could
> you
> > > > please
> > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use
> case
> > > for
> > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If
> so,
> > > > what
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
> > > > > understanding,
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing
> > > something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31,
> > 2020
> > > at
> > > > > > 2:08
> > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would propose
> > > > adding
> > > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > > > point
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to the
> > ORM
> > > > > > > frameworks
> > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the
> > > > storage
> > > > > > > engine
> > > > > > > > > > > > requires
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones that
> > > > > > complicate
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially if
> a
> > > key
> > > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > > comprises
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice
> > if
> > > > the
> > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single entity
> > > object
> > > > > when
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > comes
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a
> key
> > > and
> > > > > > > value.
> > > > > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the
> essential
> > > > > public
> > > > > > > APIs
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > single-entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you
> > think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28,
> > > 2020
> > > > at
> > > > > > > 3:50
> > > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the
> big
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > proposed
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first
> > > > > > approach".
> > > > > > > To
> > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this
> > change:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a
> > > look
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > let
> > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions,
> or
> > > > > > > objections.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >
> >
>

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Valentin Kulichenko <va...@gmail.com>]

Hi Mike,

Thanks for providing your feedback. Please see my comments below.

I would also encourage you to go through the IEP-54 [1] - it has a lot of
detail on the topic.

[1]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach

-Val

On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:22 PM Michael Cherkasov <
michael.cherkasov@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I reviewed the mail thread and proposal page and I still don't fully
> understand what is going to be changed, I would really appreciate it if you
> will answer a few questions:
>
> 1. Are you going to leave only one schema per cache? if so, will be there
> an option to have a table with arbitrary objects(pure KV case)?
>

My opinion is that KV case should be natively supported. I think this still
needs to be thought over, my current view on this is that we should have
separate APIs for KV and more generic storages. KV storage can be
implemented as a "table" with two BLOB fields where we will store
serialized key-value pairs. That would imply deserialization on read, but I
believe this is OK for KV use cases. I'm happy to hear other ideas though :)


> 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0 have to define schema? SchemaBuilder
> and SQL only? Is there an option to put the schema definition to the
> configuration?(I really don't like this, I would prefer to have
> separate scripts to create schemas)
>

There will be no such thing as a static configuration in the first place.
Tables and schemas are created in runtime. Even if there is a file provided
on node startup, this file is only applied in the scope of the 'start'
operation. All configurations will be stored in a meta storage available to
all nodes, as opposed to individual files.


> 3. Is there a way to change field type? if yes, can it be done in runtime?
>

Absolutely! IEP-54 has a whole section about schema evolution.


> 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going to be re-worked too, is there any
> IEP for this?
>

BinaryMarshaller as a tool for arbitrary object serialization will be gone,
but we will reuse a lot of its concept to implement an internal tuple
serialization mechanism. IEP-54 has the description of the proposed data
format.


> 5. I don't like automatic schema evaluation when a new field is added
> automatically on record put, so is there a way to prohibit this behavior?
>  I think all schema changes should be done only explicitly except initial
> schema creation.
>

The way I see it is that we should have two modes: schema-first and
schema-last. Schema-first means exactly what you've described - schemas are
defined and updated explicitly by the user. In the schema-last mode,
the user does not deal with schemas, as they are inferred from the data
inserted into tables. We should definitely not mix these modes - it has to
be one or another. And it probably makes sense to discuss which mode should
be the default one.


>
> Thanks,
> Mike.
>
> пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey Mashenkov <andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> >:
>
> > Hi, Igniters.
> >
> > We all know that the current QueryEntity API is not convenient and needs
> to
> > be reworked.
> > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema configuration public API for
> > Ignite 3.0.
> >
> > New schema configuration uses Builder pattern, which looks more
> comfortable
> > to use.
> >
> > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package with the API itself, and a
> draft
> > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
> > and a test that demonstrates how the API could be used.
> >
> > Please note:
> >
> > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with static factory methods.
> > * The implementation is decoupled and can be easily extracted to separate
> > module if we decide to do so.
> > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are missed, they will be added
> lately
> > in separate tickes.
> > * Index configuration extends marker interface that makes possible to
> > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
> > Hopfully, we could add a persistent geo-indices support in future.
> > * Supposedly, current table schema can be changed via builder-like
> > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See 'TableModificationBuilder'
> for
> > details.
> > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have 'toBuilder()' converter for that
> > purpose as it is a Schema Manager responsibility to create mutator
> objects
> > from the current schema,
> > but implementing the Schema manager is out of scope and will be designed
> > within the next task.
> > * Interfaces implementations are out of scope. I did not intend to merge
> > them right now, but for test/demostration purposes.
> >
> > It is NOT the final version and some may be changed before the first
> > release of course.
> > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed with this approach or some
> > issues should be resolved at first.
> >
> > Any thoughts or objections?
> > Are interfaces good enough to be merged within the current ticket?
> >
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <ju...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types:
> > >
> > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
> > > 2. It requires adding new types to the internal representation,
> protocol,
> > > e.t.c.
> > > 3. internal representation should be the same as we keep sign types. So
> > it
> > > will not requires more memory
> > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such types for platforms which not
> > > support unsigned types. For example, a user could derive -6 value in
> Java
> > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits perspective will be right). I
> > think
> > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such cases, especially it will be
> bad
> > > for unsigned long when we require returns BigInteger type.
> > > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix for new types like a
> '250u' -
> > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
> > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive comparison logic for indexes
> > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for expressions. I think it not
> > > possible for the current H2 engine and probably possible for the new
> > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from anybody who involved in this
> part
> > >
> > > WDYT?
> > >
> > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > >
> > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0: once we the actual type
> > > > information, we can make proper runtime adjustments and conversions
> to
> > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will be just a bit more
> expensive.
> > > >
> > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
> > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons and so on are broken
> > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned this somewhere above.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document that SQL is not supported on
> > > those
> > > > > types,
> > > > > end of story.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable request. I thought about this
> > > when
> > > > I
> > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add these types right
> away.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with .NET
> and
> > > C++
> > > > :)
> > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually works as expected, it needs
> > some
> > > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns are false):
> > > > > >
> > > > > >    - It's true that equality check works properly, but for SQL
> > range
> > > > > >    queries it will break unless some special care is taken on
> Java
> > > > side:
> > > > > > for
> > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will be converted to -1,
> > which
> > > > will
> > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we don't have unsigned types now,
> I
> > > > doubt
> > > > > it
> > > > > >    works.
> > > > > >    - There is an obvious cross-platform data loss when
> "intuitive"
> > > type
> > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8 corresponds to byte type in
> .NET,
> > > but
> > > > to
> > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have to use short type in Java,
> > and
> > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >    will also need to take care of the range check during
> > > > serialization).
> > > > > I
> > > > > >    think we can even allow to try to deserialize a value into
> > > arbitrary
> > > > > > type,
> > > > > >    but throw an exception if the range is out of bounds.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
> > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once all the details are
> > settled
> > > > > here?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't be treated correctly
> for
> > > now
> > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think we could make "true" support for unsigned types, but
> they
> > > > will
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
> > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map uint64 to Java long
> > > primitive,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > BigInteger only.
> > > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64 to Java long, but treat
> > > negative
> > > > > > > values in a different way to preserve correct ordering.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > These limitations will affect only mixed environments when .Net
> > and
> > > > > Java
> > > > > > > used to access the data.
> > > > > > > Will this solution address your issues?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with .NET
> > and
> > > > C++
> > > > > :)
> > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as cache keys and values, as
> > > fields
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > properties,
> > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y clauses) - it works
> > > > > transparently
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > the users.
> > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats those values as
> > corresponding
> > > > > signed
> > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in some cases only because
> > there
> > > > are
> > > > > no
> > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very simple change to the
> protocol
> > -
> > > > add
> > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as signed counterparts.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise representation is
> the
> > > > same)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a uByte field and map it
> > to
> > > > > > 'uint8'
> > > > > > > > > column.
> > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to "250" and put the object
> > into a
> > > > > > table,
> > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a single byte 'int8' column.
> > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it to directly the Java
> > > object
> > > > > > field
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8 type to Java 'short'
> type
> > > > > > > > > because the one expected to see "250" as a value which
> > doesn't
> > > > fit
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > signed type.
> > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a BigInteger field in Java.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat column value as Java 'byte' as
> > is,
> > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a negative value, so it should
> be
> > > cast
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > short
> > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger for uint64)
> > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will require a different
> comparator.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a good idea.
> > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the simple approach I
> > described?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing range for unsigned types
> > then
> > > we
> > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > add a
> > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on schema level (like
> > > > nullability
> > > > > > > flag)
> > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types in storage.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate storage type-system and
> > binary
> > > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of type will match 1 to 1
> with
> > > > > storage
> > > > > > > > > (native)
> > > > > > > > > > > type.
> > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either have a separate type id or
> > > treat
> > > > > > > > > serialized
> > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed or unsigned flag).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever foresee the consequences of
> > > using
> > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned types perfectly works
> > with
> > > > some
> > > > > > > > > database,
> > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite successor confession with our
> > > > > "native"
> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he can use the power of Ignite
> > > > Compute
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either fail to use his unsigned
> > data
> > > > on
> > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > due
> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due to natural Java type system
> > > > > > limitations
> > > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively supported types with possible
> > value
> > > > > > ranges
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
> > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is what trade-off we found
> > > acceptable:
> > > > > > > > narrowing
> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use types of wider range on
> > systems
> > > > like
> > > > > > > Java.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor Sapego <
> > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so hard to implement
> > > comparison
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not seem to be a big
> issue
> > > > from
> > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned types from Java - I
> think,
> > > if
> > > > a
> > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to interact with it from
> Java
> > he
> > > > > knows
> > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from platforms where they
> have
> > > > native
> > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > widely
> > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where users currently have
> > to
> > > > > make a
> > > > > > > > > manual
> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > > casting
> > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using unsigned types when they use
> > > > Ignite.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for those types (basically,
> > just
> > > > add
> > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise
> representation
> > > is
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > same)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned integers, so we can
> > > > simply
> > > > > > say
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative comparison is not supported
> > in
> > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > (equality
> > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have i8 or int8 instead of
> > > > Integer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't address the issue.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types should be portable across
> > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > systems
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type support.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is that unsigned types cover
> > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > ranges.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to introduce a uLong.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big deal to add uLong type
> > > > support
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > storage
> > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and then use it in e.g.
> > .Net
> > > > > only.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support it in e.g. Java?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range is about (2^-63 ..
> > > 2^63)
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > range
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to restrict range to (0 ..
> > > > 2^63).
> > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but doesn't look like a
> > > 'real'
> > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse when the user will use
> > > uByte,
> > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > limitation
> > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map unsigned types to a
> > type
> > > of
> > > > > > wider
> > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative values. E.g. uLong to
> > > > > BigInteger.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive Java type for Long
> here.
> > > > > > However,
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8 bytes, but have a
> > > special
> > > > > > > > comparator
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid unwanted deserialization.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of "long, short, byte" in
> > the
> > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style, which is concise and
> > > > > unambiguous:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM Igor Sapego <
> > > > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support that. Also, if we are
> aiming
> > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger platform-independance,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may want to support
> > > bit-notation
> > > > > > > (int32,
> > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a different type on different
> > > > > platforms
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often when using ODBC for
> > example).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM Pavel
> Tupitsyn
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should support unsigned data
> > types:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have them, but many other
> > > languages
> > > > > do,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing number of thin clients
> > > this
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in current Ignite.NET
> > > implementation
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain when it comes to
> > > > metadata,
> > > > > > > binary
> > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to deserialize int as uint when
> > you
> > > > > have
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > class,
> > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM Andrey
> > > > Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both serializers use
> reflection
> > > > API.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will allow users to configure
> > > > static
> > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > along
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still need to validate
> user
> > > > > classes
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > client
> > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in the grid  and
> > reflection
> > > > API
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few articles on the
> internet
> > > on
> > > > > how
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task for supporting
> GraalVM,
> > > and
> > > > > > maybe
> > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM will suggest a
> > solution
> > > > or
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is found, we could allow
> > > users
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I don't think it is a
> good
> > > idea
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > expose
> > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the public.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM Denis
> > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the update,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the serializers take into
> > > > > > consideration
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native-image-generation feature of
> > GraalVM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current binary marshaller, we
> > > can't
> > > > > even
> > > > > > > > > > generate
> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using our thin client
> APIs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM Andrey
> > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to continue discussion of
> > IEP-54
> > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who is interested had a
> > > > chance
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to ask
> > questions
> > > > and
> > > > > > > share
> > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a prototype of
> serializer
> > > [2]
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I compared 2 approaches
> to
> > > > > > > > (de)serialize
> > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java reflection/unsafe API and
> > > similar
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second one generates
> serializer
> > > for
> > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library for compilation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows better results in
> > > > > benchmarks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go with it as default
> > > > > serializer
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation as a fallback if
> someone
> > > > will
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of tasks under the
> > > > > umbrella
> > > > > > > > ticket
> > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to create more tickets
> > for
> > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > manager
> > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation, but would like to
> > clarify
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > details.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought schemaManager on each node
> > > should
> > > > > > held:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping of "schema
> version"
> > > <-->
> > > > > > > > validated
> > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide schema changes
> > history.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client side. Before any
> > key-value
> > > > API
> > > > > > > > > operation
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a given key-value pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no local-mapping exists
> > for a
> > > > > given
> > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema has a more recent
> > > > version
> > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be validated against the
> latest
> > > > > version
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object doesn't fit to the
> latest
> > > > schema
> > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > depends
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail the operation
> > ('strict'
> > > > > mode)
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a new schema version
> should
> > > be
> > > > > > > > propagated
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server side we usually have no
> > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > classes
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change history is available
> > > and a
> > > > > > tuple
> > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to upgrade any
> received
> > > > tuple
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > last
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow nodes to send
> > > key-value
> > > > > > pairs
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't receive a schema update
> > yet)
> > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > reverting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node with newer classes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the
> same?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Ivan
> > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not ignore history. We
> had
> > a
> > > > > thread
> > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can resume it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00, Denis
> > Magda
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks for
> > > > explaining.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we need to have a
> > separate
> > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms substitution. I'll
> > > > > appreciate
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing pointers to any relevant
> > IEPs
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > reasoning
> > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM
> > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the wording in the IEP
> is
> > a
> > > > > little
> > > > > > > bit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you should not create
> nested
> > > > POJOs,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO that is mapped to a
> > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this correct? Please
> let
> > me
> > > > > know
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the "cache" term, I agree
> > > that
> > > > it
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can replace it with.
> > "Table"
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > tightly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional in our case. Do
> > you
> > > > want
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > create a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM
> > Denis
> > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked the IEP again and
> > > have a
> > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > questions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects and
> > > > > collections
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should either be
> > > > inlined
> > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > schema,
> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL code
> > > snippet
> > > > > > > showing
> > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to work?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep using the terms
> > > "cache"
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right time to discuss an
> > > > alternate
> > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the "table" should
> > stay
> > > > and
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one of the primary
> > APIs
> > > > in
> > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM
> > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your point. I agree
> that
> > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > automatic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last territory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we support
> > automatic
> > > > > > > > evolution,
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a cache without
> schema
> > > and
> > > > > > > > inferring
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other words, we can have both
> > > > > > > > "schema-first"
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59
> AM
> > > > Alexey
> > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got your
> concern
> > > > now.
> > > > > As
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > terminology, I am
> absolutely
> > > fine
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the approach best. Dynamic
> or
> > > > > > evolving
> > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > corresponding changes to
> the
> > > IEP
> > > > > once
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > settle
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в
> 11:33,
> > > Ivan
> > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for your
> answer!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My understanding is a
> > little
> > > > bit
> > > > > > > > > different.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > definitely should be
> > > possible.
> > > > > But
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is updated". I
> > treat a
> > > > > > common
> > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data manipulation
> > > > operations
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > clearly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > interesting capabilities,
> > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > preventing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data operations,
> > > > > > restricting
> > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first means that
> > > > schema
> > > > > > > exists
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is compliant with it -
> > that's
> > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last approach
> > > > mentioned
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is
> inferred
> > > from
> > > > > > data.
> > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing approach?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would like to say,
> > that
> > > > my
> > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > terminology. And I
> suppose
> > if
> > > > it
> > > > > > > > confuses
> > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused as well. My
> > feeling
> > > is
> > > > > > > closer
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47
> GMT+03:00,
> > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an issue
> with
> > > > that.
> > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance and all the
> > stored
> > > > data
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > compliant
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is proposed. There are
> no
> > > > > > > > restrictions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at
> > 9:52
> > > > PM
> > > > > > Ivan
> > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit
> > confused
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > My
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see
> > part
> > > X
> > > > > Semi
> > > > > > > > > > > Structured
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema"
> > > approach
> > > > > as a
> > > > > > > > kind
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53
> > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you
> > > please
> > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case
> > for
> > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so,
> > > what
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
> > > > understanding,
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing
> > something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes, if
> > all
> > > > the
> > > > > > ORM
> > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > internally, then
> they
> > > can
> > > > > > easily
> > > > > > > > > > > translate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE
> > statement
> > > > that
> > > > > > > lists
> > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data
> > integration
> > > is
> > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > based
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be improved once
> > the
> > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of
> > usability
> > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would revise the
> > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say if
> > it's
> > > > > used
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind,
> I'll
> > > > loop
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > long
> > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support for
> > > > Micornaut
> > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came across some
> > > > challenges.
> > > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > > > > watch
> > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite
> 3.0.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020
> > at
> > > > 5:11
> > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally
> speaking, I
> > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the issue
> > if
> > > > > > > duplicate
> > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be
> > created
> > > > for
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > cache,
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the
> schema
> > > > will
> > > > > > > define
> > > > > > > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which fields
> are
> > > > > included
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be
> > compliant
> > > > with
> > > > > > > this,
> > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a set
> of
> > > > > > records,
> > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you
> > > please
> > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case
> > for
> > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so,
> > > what
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
> > > > understanding,
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing
> > something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31,
> 2020
> > at
> > > > > 2:08
> > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would propose
> > > adding
> > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > > point
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to the
> ORM
> > > > > > frameworks
> > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the
> > > storage
> > > > > > engine
> > > > > > > > > > > requires
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones that
> > > > > complicate
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially if a
> > key
> > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > comprises
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice
> if
> > > the
> > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single entity
> > object
> > > > when
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > comes
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a key
> > and
> > > > > > value.
> > > > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the essential
> > > > public
> > > > > > APIs
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > single-entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you
> think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28,
> > 2020
> > > at
> > > > > > 3:50
> > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the big
> > > > changes
> > > > > > > > proposed
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first
> > > > > approach".
> > > > > > To
> > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this
> change:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a
> > look
> > > > and
> > > > > > let
> > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions, or
> > > > > > objections.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >
>

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Michael Cherkasov <mi...@gmail.com>]

Hi all,

I reviewed the mail thread and proposal page and I still don't fully
understand what is going to be changed, I would really appreciate it if you
will answer a few questions:

1. Are you going to leave only one schema per cache? if so, will be there
an option to have a table with arbitrary objects(pure KV case)?
2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0 have to define schema? SchemaBuilder
and SQL only? Is there an option to put the schema definition to the
configuration?(I really don't like this, I would prefer to have
separate scripts to create schemas)
3. Is there a way to change field type? if yes, can it be done in runtime?
4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going to be re-worked too, is there any
IEP for this?
5. I don't like automatic schema evaluation when a new field is added
automatically on record put, so is there a way to prohibit this behavior?
 I think all schema changes should be done only explicitly except initial
schema creation.

Thanks,
Mike.

пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>:

> Hi, Igniters.
>
> We all know that the current QueryEntity API is not convenient and needs to
> be reworked.
> So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema configuration public API for
> Ignite 3.0.
>
> New schema configuration uses Builder pattern, which looks more comfortable
> to use.
>
> In the PR you will find a 'schema' package with the API itself, and a draft
> implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
> and a test that demonstrates how the API could be used.
>
> Please note:
>
> * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with static factory methods.
> * The implementation is decoupled and can be easily extracted to separate
> module if we decide to do so.
> * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are missed, they will be added lately
> in separate tickes.
> * Index configuration extends marker interface that makes possible to
> implement indexes of new types in plugins.
> Hopfully, we could add a persistent geo-indices support in future.
> * Supposedly, current table schema can be changed via builder-like
> structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See 'TableModificationBuilder' for
> details.
> I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have 'toBuilder()' converter for that
> purpose as it is a Schema Manager responsibility to create mutator objects
> from the current schema,
> but implementing the Schema manager is out of scope and will be designed
> within the next task.
> * Interfaces implementations are out of scope. I did not intend to merge
> them right now, but for test/demostration purposes.
>
> It is NOT the final version and some may be changed before the first
> release of course.
> For now, we have to agree if we can proceed with this approach or some
> issues should be resolved at first.
>
> Any thoughts or objections?
> Are interfaces good enough to be merged within the current ticket?
>
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types:
> >
> > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
> > 2. It requires adding new types to the internal representation, protocol,
> > e.t.c.
> > 3. internal representation should be the same as we keep sign types. So
> it
> > will not requires more memory
> > 4. User should be aware of specifics such types for platforms which not
> > support unsigned types. For example, a user could derive -6 value in Java
> > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits perspective will be right). I
> think
> > We shouldn't use more wide type for such cases, especially it will be bad
> > for unsigned long when we require returns BigInteger type.
> > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix for new types like a '250u' -
> > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
> > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive comparison logic for indexes
> > 7. It requires new comparison logic for expressions. I think it not
> > possible for the current H2 engine and probably possible for the new
> > Calcite engine. Need clarification from anybody who involved in this part
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey Goncharuk <
> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > >:
> >
> > > Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0: once we the actual type
> > > information, we can make proper runtime adjustments and conversions to
> > > treat those values as unsigned - it will be just a bit more expensive.
> > >
> > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > > > SQL range queries it will break
> > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
> > > >
> > > > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons and so on are broken
> > > > for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned this somewhere above.
> > > >
> > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document that SQL is not supported on
> > those
> > > > types,
> > > > end of story.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable request. I thought about this
> > when
> > > I
> > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add these types right away.
> > > > >
> > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with .NET and
> > C++
> > > :)
> > > > > I have some doubts that it actually works as expected, it needs
> some
> > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns are false):
> > > > >
> > > > >    - It's true that equality check works properly, but for SQL
> range
> > > > >    queries it will break unless some special care is taken on Java
> > > side:
> > > > > for
> > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will be converted to -1,
> which
> > > will
> > > > >    break the comparison. Since we don't have unsigned types now, I
> > > doubt
> > > > it
> > > > >    works.
> > > > >    - There is an obvious cross-platform data loss when "intuitive"
> > type
> > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8 corresponds to byte type in .NET,
> > but
> > > to
> > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have to use short type in Java,
> and
> > > > > Ignite
> > > > >    will also need to take care of the range check during
> > > serialization).
> > > > I
> > > > >    think we can even allow to try to deserialize a value into
> > arbitrary
> > > > > type,
> > > > >    but throw an exception if the range is out of bounds.
> > > > >
> > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
> > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once all the details are
> settled
> > > > here?
> > > > >
> > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > > >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't be treated correctly for
> > now
> > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think we could make "true" support for unsigned types, but they
> > > will
> > > > > have
> > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
> > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map uint64 to Java long
> > primitive,
> > > > but
> > > > > to
> > > > > > BigInteger only.
> > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64 to Java long, but treat
> > negative
> > > > > > values in a different way to preserve correct ordering.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > These limitations will affect only mixed environments when .Net
> and
> > > > Java
> > > > > > used to access the data.
> > > > > > Will this solution address your issues?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with .NET
> and
> > > C++
> > > > :)
> > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as cache keys and values, as
> > fields
> > > > and
> > > > > > > properties,
> > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y clauses) - it works
> > > > transparently
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > the users.
> > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats those values as
> corresponding
> > > > signed
> > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in some cases only because
> there
> > > are
> > > > no
> > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very simple change to the protocol
> -
> > > add
> > > > > type
> > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as signed counterparts.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise representation is the
> > > same)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a uByte field and map it
> to
> > > > > 'uint8'
> > > > > > > > column.
> > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to "250" and put the object
> into a
> > > > > table,
> > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a single byte 'int8' column.
> > > > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it to directly the Java
> > object
> > > > > field
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8 type to Java 'short' type
> > > > > > > > because the one expected to see "250" as a value which
> doesn't
> > > fit
> > > > to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > signed type.
> > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a BigInteger field in Java.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat column value as Java 'byte' as
> is,
> > > > > because
> > > > > > > > after reading you will get a negative value, so it should be
> > cast
> > > > to
> > > > > > > short
> > > > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger for uint64)
> > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will require a different comparator.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a good idea.
> > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the simple approach I
> described?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing range for unsigned types
> then
> > we
> > > > > could
> > > > > > > > add a
> > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on schema level (like
> > > nullability
> > > > > > flag)
> > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types in storage.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate storage type-system and
> binary
> > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of type will match 1 to 1 with
> > > > storage
> > > > > > > > (native)
> > > > > > > > > > type.
> > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either have a separate type id or
> > treat
> > > > > > > > serialized
> > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed or unsigned flag).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Igor,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever foresee the consequences of
> > using
> > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned types perfectly works
> with
> > > some
> > > > > > > > database,
> > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite successor confession with our
> > > > "native"
> > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he can use the power of Ignite
> > > Compute
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either fail to use his unsigned
> data
> > > on
> > > > > Java
> > > > > > > due
> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due to natural Java type system
> > > > > limitations
> > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively supported types with possible
> value
> > > > > ranges
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
> > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is what trade-off we found
> > acceptable:
> > > > > > > narrowing
> > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use types of wider range on
> systems
> > > like
> > > > > > Java.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor Sapego <
> > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so hard to implement
> > comparison
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not seem to be a big issue
> > > from
> > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned types from Java - I think,
> > if
> > > a
> > > > > user
> > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to interact with it from Java
> he
> > > > knows
> > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > doing.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from platforms where they have
> > > native
> > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > widely
> > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where users currently have
> to
> > > > make a
> > > > > > > > manual
> > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > casting
> > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using unsigned types when they use
> > > Ignite.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
> > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for those types (basically,
> just
> > > add
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > ids)
> > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise representation
> > is
> > > > the
> > > > > > > same)
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned integers, so we can
> > > simply
> > > > > say
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative comparison is not supported
> in
> > > SQL
> > > > > > > > (equality
> > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > work).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have i8 or int8 instead of
> > > Integer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't address the issue.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types should be portable across
> > > > different
> > > > > > > > systems
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type support.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is that unsigned types cover
> > > > different
> > > > > > > > ranges.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to introduce a uLong.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big deal to add uLong type
> > > support
> > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > storage
> > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and then use it in e.g.
> .Net
> > > > only.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support it in e.g. Java?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range is about (2^-63 ..
> > 2^63)
> > > > and
> > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > > > > range
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to restrict range to (0 ..
> > > 2^63).
> > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but doesn't look like a
> > 'real'
> > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse when the user will use
> > uByte,
> > > as
> > > > > > > > > limitation
> > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map unsigned types to a
> type
> > of
> > > > > wider
> > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative values. E.g. uLong to
> > > > BigInteger.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive Java type for Long here.
> > > > > However,
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8 bytes, but have a
> > special
> > > > > > > comparator
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid unwanted deserialization.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of "long, short, byte" in
> the
> > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style, which is concise and
> > > > unambiguous:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM Igor Sapego <
> > > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support that. Also, if we are aiming
> > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger platform-independance,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may want to support
> > bit-notation
> > > > > > (int32,
> > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> > > > > > > > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a different type on different
> > > > platforms
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often when using ODBC for
> example).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM Pavel Tupitsyn
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should support unsigned data
> types:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have them, but many other
> > languages
> > > > do,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing number of thin clients
> > this
> > > is
> > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in current Ignite.NET
> > implementation
> > > > we
> > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain when it comes to
> > > metadata,
> > > > > > binary
> > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to deserialize int as uint when
> you
> > > > have
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > class,
> > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM Andrey
> > > Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both serializers use reflection
> > > API.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will allow users to configure
> > > static
> > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > along
> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still need to validate user
> > > > classes
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > client
> > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in the grid  and
> reflection
> > > API
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few articles on the internet
> > on
> > > > how
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task for supporting GraalVM,
> > and
> > > > > maybe
> > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM will suggest a
> solution
> > > or
> > > > a
> > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is found, we could allow
> > users
> > > > to
> > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I don't think it is a good
> > idea
> > > > to
> > > > > > > expose
> > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the public.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM Denis
> Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the update,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the serializers take into
> > > > > consideration
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native-image-generation feature of
> GraalVM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current binary marshaller, we
> > can't
> > > > even
> > > > > > > > > generate
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > native
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using our thin client APIs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM Andrey
> > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to continue discussion of
> IEP-54
> > > > > > > > (Schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who is interested had a
> > > chance
> > > > to
> > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to ask
> questions
> > > and
> > > > > > share
> > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a prototype of serializer
> > [2]
> > > > for
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > layout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I compared 2 approaches to
> > > > > > > (de)serialize
> > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java reflection/unsafe API and
> > similar
> > > > to
> > > > > > one
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second one generates serializer
> > for
> > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > class
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library for compilation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows better results in
> > > > benchmarks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go with it as default
> > > > serializer
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation as a fallback if someone
> > > will
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of tasks under the
> > > > umbrella
> > > > > > > ticket
> > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to create more tickets
> for
> > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > manager
> > > > > > > > > > > > modes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation, but would like to
> clarify
> > > > some
> > > > > > > > details.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought schemaManager on each node
> > should
> > > > > held:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping of "schema version"
> > <-->
> > > > > > > validated
> > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide schema changes
> history.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client side. Before any
> key-value
> > > API
> > > > > > > > operation
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a given key-value pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no local-mapping exists
> for a
> > > > given
> > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema has a more recent
> > > version
> > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be validated against the latest
> > > > version
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object doesn't fit to the latest
> > > schema
> > > > > > then
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > depends
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail the operation
> ('strict'
> > > > mode)
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a new schema version should
> > be
> > > > > > > propagated
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server side we usually have no
> > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > classes
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change history is available
> > and a
> > > > > tuple
> > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to upgrade any received
> > > tuple
> > > > to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > last
> > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow nodes to send
> > key-value
> > > > > pairs
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't receive a schema update
> yet)
> > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > reverting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node with newer classes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the same?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Ivan
> > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not ignore history. We had
> a
> > > > thread
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can resume it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00, Denis
> Magda
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks for
> > > explaining.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we need to have a
> separate
> > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms substitution. I'll
> > > > appreciate
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing pointers to any relevant
> IEPs
> > > and
> > > > > > > > reasoning
> > > > > > > > > > > > behind
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM
> > Valentin
> > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the wording in the IEP is
> a
> > > > little
> > > > > > bit
> > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you should not create nested
> > > POJOs,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > > > inline
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO that is mapped to a
> > > > particular
> > > > > > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this correct? Please let
> me
> > > > know
> > > > > if
> > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the "cache" term, I agree
> > that
> > > it
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > outdated,
> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can replace it with.
> "Table"
> > > is
> > > > > > > tightly
> > > > > > > > > > > > associated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional in our case. Do
> you
> > > want
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > create a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM
> Denis
> > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked the IEP again and
> > have a
> > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > questions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects and
> > > > collections
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should either be
> > > inlined
> > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > schema,
> > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL code
> > snippet
> > > > > > showing
> > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to work?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep using the terms
> > "cache"
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right time to discuss an
> > > alternate
> > > > > name
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the "table" should
> stay
> > > and
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > "cache"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one of the primary
> APIs
> > > in
> > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM
> > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your point. I agree that
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > automatic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last territory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we support
> automatic
> > > > > > > evolution,
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a cache without schema
> > and
> > > > > > > inferring
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other words, we can have both
> > > > > > > "schema-first"
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59 AM
> > > Alexey
> > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got your concern
> > > now.
> > > > As
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > terminology, I am absolutely
> > fine
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the approach best. Dynamic or
> > > > > evolving
> > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > corresponding changes to the
> > IEP
> > > > once
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > settle
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в 11:33,
> > Ivan
> > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for your answer!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My understanding is a
> little
> > > bit
> > > > > > > > different.
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > definitely should be
> > possible.
> > > > But
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is updated". I
> treat a
> > > > > common
> > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data manipulation
> > > operations
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > clearly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > interesting capabilities,
> > e.g.
> > > > > > > preventing
> > > > > > > > > > > > untended
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data operations,
> > > > > restricting
> > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first means that
> > > schema
> > > > > > exists
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > advance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is compliant with it -
> that's
> > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last approach
> > > mentioned
> > > > in
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is inferred
> > from
> > > > > data.
> > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing approach?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would like to say,
> that
> > > my
> > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > concern
> > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > terminology. And I suppose
> if
> > > it
> > > > > > > confuses
> > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused as well. My
> feeling
> > is
> > > > > > closer
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47 GMT+03:00,
> > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an issue with
> > > that.
> > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance and all the
> stored
> > > data
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > compliant
> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is proposed. There are no
> > > > > > > restrictions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at
> 9:52
> > > PM
> > > > > Ivan
> > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit
> confused
> > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > terminology.
> > > > > > > > > > > > My
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see
> part
> > X
> > > > Semi
> > > > > > > > > > Structured
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema"
> > approach
> > > > as a
> > > > > > > kind
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53
> GMT+03:00,
> > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you
> > please
> > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case
> for
> > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so,
> > what
> > > is
> > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
> > > understanding,
> > > > > all
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing
> something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes, if
> all
> > > the
> > > > > ORM
> > > > > > > > > > > integrations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > internally, then they
> > can
> > > > > easily
> > > > > > > > > > translate
> > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE
> statement
> > > that
> > > > > > lists
> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data
> integration
> > is
> > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > based
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be improved once
> the
> > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of
> usability
> > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would revise the
> > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say if
> it's
> > > > used
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind, I'll
> > > loop
> > > > > you
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > long
> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support for
> > > Micornaut
> > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came across some
> > > challenges.
> > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > > > watch
> > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite 3.0.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020
> at
> > > 5:11
> > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally speaking, I
> > > > believe
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the issue
> if
> > > > > > duplicate
> > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be
> created
> > > for
> > > > a
> > > > > > > cache,
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the schema
> > > will
> > > > > > define
> > > > > > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which fields are
> > > > included
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be
> compliant
> > > with
> > > > > > this,
> > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a set of
> > > > > records,
> > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you
> > please
> > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case
> for
> > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so,
> > what
> > > is
> > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
> > > understanding,
> > > > > all
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing
> something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020
> at
> > > > 2:08
> > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would propose
> > adding
> > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > point
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to the ORM
> > > > > frameworks
> > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the
> > storage
> > > > > engine
> > > > > > > > > > requires
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones that
> > > > complicate
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially if a
> key
> > > > object
> > > > > > > > > comprises
> > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice if
> > the
> > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single entity
> object
> > > when
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > comes
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a key
> and
> > > > > value.
> > > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the essential
> > > public
> > > > > APIs
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > single-entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28,
> 2020
> > at
> > > > > 3:50
> > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the big
> > > changes
> > > > > > > proposed
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first
> > > > approach".
> > > > > To
> > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this change:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a
> look
> > > and
> > > > > let
> > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions, or
> > > > > objections.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>]

Hi, Igniters.

We all know that the current QueryEntity API is not convenient and needs to
be reworked.
So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema configuration public API for
Ignite 3.0.

New schema configuration uses Builder pattern, which looks more comfortable
to use.

In the PR you will find a 'schema' package with the API itself, and a draft
implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
and a test that demonstrates how the API could be used.

Please note:

* Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with static factory methods.
* The implementation is decoupled and can be easily extracted to separate
module if we decide to do so.
* Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are missed, they will be added lately
in separate tickes.
* Index configuration extends marker interface that makes possible to
implement indexes of new types in plugins.
Hopfully, we could add a persistent geo-indices support in future.
* Supposedly, current table schema can be changed via builder-like
structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See 'TableModificationBuilder' for
details.
I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have 'toBuilder()' converter for that
purpose as it is a Schema Manager responsibility to create mutator objects
from the current schema,
but implementing the Schema manager is out of scope and will be designed
within the next task.
* Interfaces implementations are out of scope. I did not intend to merge
them right now, but for test/demostration purposes.

It is NOT the final version and some may be changed before the first
release of course.
For now, we have to agree if we can proceed with this approach or some
issues should be resolved at first.

Any thoughts or objections?
Are interfaces good enough to be merged within the current ticket?


https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748

On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:

> A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types:
>
> 1. Seems we may support unsign types
> 2. It requires adding new types to the internal representation, protocol,
> e.t.c.
> 3. internal representation should be the same as we keep sign types. So it
> will not requires more memory
> 4. User should be aware of specifics such types for platforms which not
> support unsigned types. For example, a user could derive -6 value in Java
> for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits perspective will be right). I think
> We shouldn't use more wide type for such cases, especially it will be bad
> for unsigned long when we require returns BigInteger type.
> 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix for new types like a '250u' -
> it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
> 6. It requires a little bit more expensive comparison logic for indexes
> 7. It requires new comparison logic for expressions. I think it not
> possible for the current H2 engine and probably possible for the new
> Calcite engine. Need clarification from anybody who involved in this part
>
> WDYT?
>
> вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> >:
>
> > Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0: once we the actual type
> > information, we can make proper runtime adjustments and conversions to
> > treat those values as unsigned - it will be just a bit more expensive.
> >
> > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>:
> >
> > > > SQL range queries it will break
> > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
> > >
> > > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons and so on are broken
> > > for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned this somewhere above.
> > >
> > > Again, in my opinion, we can document that SQL is not supported on
> those
> > > types,
> > > end of story.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable request. I thought about this
> when
> > I
> > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add these types right away.
> > > >
> > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with .NET and
> C++
> > :)
> > > > I have some doubts that it actually works as expected, it needs some
> > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns are false):
> > > >
> > > >    - It's true that equality check works properly, but for SQL range
> > > >    queries it will break unless some special care is taken on Java
> > side:
> > > > for
> > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will be converted to -1, which
> > will
> > > >    break the comparison. Since we don't have unsigned types now, I
> > doubt
> > > it
> > > >    works.
> > > >    - There is an obvious cross-platform data loss when "intuitive"
> type
> > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8 corresponds to byte type in .NET,
> but
> > to
> > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have to use short type in Java, and
> > > > Ignite
> > > >    will also need to take care of the range check during
> > serialization).
> > > I
> > > >    think we can even allow to try to deserialize a value into
> arbitrary
> > > > type,
> > > >    but throw an exception if the range is out of bounds.
> > > >
> > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
> > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once all the details are settled
> > > here?
> > > >
> > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > >
> > > > > Pavel,
> > > > >
> > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't be treated correctly for
> now
> > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
> > > > >
> > > > > I think we could make "true" support for unsigned types, but they
> > will
> > > > have
> > > > > limitations on the Java side.
> > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map uint64 to Java long
> primitive,
> > > but
> > > > to
> > > > > BigInteger only.
> > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64 to Java long, but treat
> negative
> > > > > values in a different way to preserve correct ordering.
> > > > >
> > > > > These limitations will affect only mixed environments when .Net and
> > > Java
> > > > > used to access the data.
> > > > > Will this solution address your issues?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with .NET and
> > C++
> > > :)
> > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as cache keys and values, as
> fields
> > > and
> > > > > > properties,
> > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y clauses) - it works
> > > transparently
> > > > > for
> > > > > > the users.
> > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats those values as corresponding
> > > signed
> > > > > > types.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in some cases only because there
> > are
> > > no
> > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very simple change to the protocol -
> > add
> > > > type
> > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as signed counterparts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise representation is the
> > same)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a uByte field and map it to
> > > > 'uint8'
> > > > > > > column.
> > > > > > > Then you set the field value to "250" and put the object into a
> > > > table,
> > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a single byte 'int8' column.
> > > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it to directly the Java
> object
> > > > field
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8 type to Java 'short' type
> > > > > > > because the one expected to see "250" as a value which doesn't
> > fit
> > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > signed type.
> > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a BigInteger field in Java.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat column value as Java 'byte' as is,
> > > > because
> > > > > > > after reading you will get a negative value, so it should be
> cast
> > > to
> > > > > > short
> > > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger for uint64)
> > > > > > > So, index on signed type will require a different comparator.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a good idea.
> > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the simple approach I described?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing range for unsigned types then
> we
> > > > could
> > > > > > > add a
> > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on schema level (like
> > nullability
> > > > > flag)
> > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types in storage.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate storage type-system and binary
> > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of type will match 1 to 1 with
> > > storage
> > > > > > > (native)
> > > > > > > > > type.
> > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either have a separate type id or
> treat
> > > > > > > serialized
> > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed or unsigned flag).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Igor,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever foresee the consequences of
> using
> > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned types perfectly works with
> > some
> > > > > > > database,
> > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite successor confession with our
> > > "native"
> > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he can use the power of Ignite
> > Compute
> > > > on
> > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either fail to use his unsigned data
> > on
> > > > Java
> > > > > > due
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > face performance issues due to natural Java type system
> > > > limitations
> > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I believe that natively supported types with possible value
> > > > ranges
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
> > > > > > > > > So, the only question is what trade-off we found
> acceptable:
> > > > > > narrowing
> > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use types of wider range on systems
> > like
> > > > > Java.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor Sapego <
> > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so hard to implement
> comparison
> > > of
> > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not seem to be a big issue
> > from
> > > my
> > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned types from Java - I think,
> if
> > a
> > > > user
> > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to interact with it from Java he
> > > knows
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > doing.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from platforms where they have
> > native
> > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > widely
> > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where users currently have to
> > > make a
> > > > > > > manual
> > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > casting
> > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using unsigned types when they use
> > Ignite.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
> > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for those types (basically, just
> > add
> > > > > more
> > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > ids)
> > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise representation
> is
> > > the
> > > > > > same)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned integers, so we can
> > simply
> > > > say
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative comparison is not supported in
> > SQL
> > > > > > > (equality
> > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > work).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have i8 or int8 instead of
> > Integer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't address the issue.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types should be portable across
> > > different
> > > > > > > systems
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type support.
> > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is that unsigned types cover
> > > different
> > > > > > > ranges.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to introduce a uLong.
> > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big deal to add uLong type
> > support
> > > > at
> > > > > > > > storage
> > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and then use it in e.g. .Net
> > > only.
> > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support it in e.g. Java?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range is about (2^-63 ..
> 2^63)
> > > and
> > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > > > range
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to restrict range to (0 ..
> > 2^63).
> > > > This
> > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but doesn't look like a
> 'real'
> > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse when the user will use
> uByte,
> > as
> > > > > > > > limitation
> > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map unsigned types to a type
> of
> > > > wider
> > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative values. E.g. uLong to
> > > BigInteger.
> > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive Java type for Long here.
> > > > However,
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8 bytes, but have a
> special
> > > > > > comparator
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid unwanted deserialization.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of "long, short, byte" in the
> > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > > > definition.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style, which is concise and
> > > unambiguous:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM Igor Sapego <
> > > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support that. Also, if we are aiming
> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger platform-independance,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may want to support
> bit-notation
> > > > > (int32,
> > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> > > > > > > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a different type on different
> > > platforms
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often when using ODBC for example).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should support unsigned data types:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have them, but many other
> languages
> > > do,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing number of thin clients
> this
> > is
> > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in current Ignite.NET
> implementation
> > > we
> > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain when it comes to
> > metadata,
> > > > > binary
> > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to deserialize int as uint when you
> > > have
> > > > a
> > > > > > > class,
> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM Andrey
> > Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both serializers use reflection
> > API.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will allow users to configure
> > static
> > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > along
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still need to validate user
> > > classes
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > > client
> > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in the grid  and reflection
> > API
> > > > is
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few articles on the internet
> on
> > > how
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task for supporting GraalVM,
> and
> > > > maybe
> > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM will suggest a solution
> > or
> > > a
> > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is found, we could allow
> users
> > > to
> > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I don't think it is a good
> idea
> > > to
> > > > > > expose
> > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the public.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM Denis Magda <
> > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the update,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the serializers take into
> > > > consideration
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native-image-generation feature of GraalVM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current binary marshaller, we
> can't
> > > even
> > > > > > > > generate
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > native
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using our thin client APIs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM Andrey
> > > Mashenkov
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to continue discussion of IEP-54
> > > > > > > (Schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who is interested had a
> > chance
> > > to
> > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > familiar
> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to ask questions
> > and
> > > > > share
> > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a prototype of serializer
> [2]
> > > for
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > layout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I compared 2 approaches to
> > > > > > (de)serialize
> > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java reflection/unsafe API and
> similar
> > > to
> > > > > one
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second one generates serializer
> for
> > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > class
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library for compilation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows better results in
> > > benchmarks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go with it as default
> > > serializer
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation as a fallback if someone
> > will
> > > > have
> > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of tasks under the
> > > umbrella
> > > > > > ticket
> > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to create more tickets for
> > > > schema
> > > > > > > > manager
> > > > > > > > > > > modes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation, but would like to clarify
> > > some
> > > > > > > details.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought schemaManager on each node
> should
> > > > held:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping of "schema version"
> <-->
> > > > > > validated
> > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide schema changes history.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client side. Before any key-value
> > API
> > > > > > > operation
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a given key-value pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no local-mapping exists for a
> > > given
> > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema has a more recent
> > version
> > > > > then
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be validated against the latest
> > > version
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object doesn't fit to the latest
> > schema
> > > > > then
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > depends
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail the operation ('strict'
> > > mode)
> > > > > or
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a new schema version should
> be
> > > > > > propagated
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server side we usually have no
> > > key-value
> > > > > > > classes
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change history is available
> and a
> > > > tuple
> > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to upgrade any received
> > tuple
> > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > last
> > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow nodes to send
> key-value
> > > > pairs
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't receive a schema update yet)
> > > > without
> > > > > > > > > reverting
> > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node with newer classes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the same?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Ivan
> > > Pavlukhin
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not ignore history. We had a
> > > thread
> > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can resume it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda
> <
> > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks for
> > explaining.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we need to have a separate
> > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms substitution. I'll
> > > appreciate
> > > > > it
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > start
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing pointers to any relevant IEPs
> > and
> > > > > > > reasoning
> > > > > > > > > > > behind
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM
> Valentin
> > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the wording in the IEP is a
> > > little
> > > > > bit
> > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you should not create nested
> > POJOs,
> > > > but
> > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > > inline
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO that is mapped to a
> > > particular
> > > > > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this correct? Please let me
> > > know
> > > > if
> > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the "cache" term, I agree
> that
> > it
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > outdated,
> > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can replace it with. "Table"
> > is
> > > > > > tightly
> > > > > > > > > > > associated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional in our case. Do you
> > want
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > create a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM Denis
> > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked the IEP again and
> have a
> > > few
> > > > > > > > > questions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects and
> > > collections
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should either be
> > inlined
> > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > schema,
> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL code
> snippet
> > > > > showing
> > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to work?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep using the terms
> "cache"
> > > and
> > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right time to discuss an
> > alternate
> > > > name
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the "table" should stay
> > and
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > "cache"
> > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one of the primary APIs
> > in
> > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM
> > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your point. I agree that
> with
> > > the
> > > > > > > > automatic
> > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last territory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we support automatic
> > > > > > evolution,
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a cache without schema
> and
> > > > > > inferring
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other words, we can have both
> > > > > > "schema-first"
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59 AM
> > Alexey
> > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got your concern
> > now.
> > > As
> > > > > it
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > terminology, I am absolutely
> fine
> > > > with
> > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the approach best. Dynamic or
> > > > evolving
> > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > corresponding changes to the
> IEP
> > > once
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > settle
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в 11:33,
> Ivan
> > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for your answer!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My understanding is a little
> > bit
> > > > > > > different.
> > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > definitely should be
> possible.
> > > But
> > > > I
> > > > > > see
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is updated". I treat a
> > > > common
> > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data manipulation
> > operations
> > > > are
> > > > > > > > clearly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > interesting capabilities,
> e.g.
> > > > > > preventing
> > > > > > > > > > > untended
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data operations,
> > > > restricting
> > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first means that
> > schema
> > > > > exists
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > advance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is compliant with it - that's
> > > > exactly
> > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last approach
> > mentioned
> > > in
> > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is inferred
> from
> > > > data.
> > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing approach?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would like to say, that
> > my
> > > > main
> > > > > > > > concern
> > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > > far
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > terminology. And I suppose if
> > it
> > > > > > confuses
> > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused as well. My feeling
> is
> > > > > closer
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47 GMT+03:00,
> > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an issue with
> > that.
> > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance and all the stored
> > data
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > compliant
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is proposed. There are no
> > > > > > restrictions
> > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:52
> > PM
> > > > Ivan
> > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit confused
> > > with
> > > > > > > > > terminology.
> > > > > > > > > > > My
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see part
> X
> > > Semi
> > > > > > > > > Structured
> > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema"
> approach
> > > as a
> > > > > > kind
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53 GMT+03:00,
> > > Denis
> > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you
> please
> > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for
> > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so,
> what
> > is
> > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
> > understanding,
> > > > all
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes, if all
> > the
> > > > ORM
> > > > > > > > > > integrations
> > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > internally, then they
> can
> > > > easily
> > > > > > > > > translate
> > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE statement
> > that
> > > > > lists
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data integration
> is
> > > > > already
> > > > > > > > based
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be improved once the
> > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of usability
> > > > issues.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would revise the
> > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > integration
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say if it's
> > > used
> > > > a
> > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind, I'll
> > loop
> > > > you
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > long
> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support for
> > Micornaut
> > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came across some
> > challenges.
> > > > > Just
> > > > > > > > watch
> > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite 3.0.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at
> > 5:11
> > > > PM
> > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally speaking, I
> > > believe
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the issue if
> > > > > duplicate
> > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be created
> > for
> > > a
> > > > > > cache,
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the schema
> > will
> > > > > define
> > > > > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which fields are
> > > included
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be compliant
> > with
> > > > > this,
> > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a set of
> > > > records,
> > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you
> please
> > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for
> > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so,
> what
> > is
> > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
> > understanding,
> > > > all
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at
> > > 2:08
> > > > PM
> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would propose
> adding
> > > > > another
> > > > > > > > point
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to the ORM
> > > > frameworks
> > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the
> storage
> > > > engine
> > > > > > > > > requires
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones that
> > > complicate
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially if a key
> > > object
> > > > > > > > comprises
> > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice if
> the
> > > new
> > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single entity object
> > when
> > > > it
> > > > > > > comes
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a key and
> > > > value.
> > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the essential
> > public
> > > > APIs
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > single-entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020
> at
> > > > 3:50
> > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the big
> > changes
> > > > > > proposed
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first
> > > approach".
> > > > To
> > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this change:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a look
> > and
> > > > let
> > > > > me
> > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions, or
> > > > objections.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Живи с улыбкой! :D
>


-- 
Best regards,
Andrey V. Mashenkov

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Юрий <ju...@gmail.com>]

A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types:

1. Seems we may support unsign types
2. It requires adding new types to the internal representation, protocol,
e.t.c.
3. internal representation should be the same as we keep sign types. So it
will not requires more memory
4. User should be aware of specifics such types for platforms which not
support unsigned types. For example, a user could derive -6 value in Java
for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits perspective will be right). I think
We shouldn't use more wide type for such cases, especially it will be bad
for unsigned long when we require returns BigInteger type.
5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix for new types like a '250u' -
it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
6. It requires a little bit more expensive comparison logic for indexes
7. It requires new comparison logic for expressions. I think it not
possible for the current H2 engine and probably possible for the new
Calcite engine. Need clarification from anybody who involved in this part

WDYT?

вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey Goncharuk <al...@gmail.com>:

> Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0: once we the actual type
> information, we can make proper runtime adjustments and conversions to
> treat those values as unsigned - it will be just a bit more expensive.
>
> вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>:
>
> > > SQL range queries it will break
> > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
> >
> > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons and so on are broken
> > for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned this somewhere above.
> >
> > Again, in my opinion, we can document that SQL is not supported on those
> > types,
> > end of story.
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable request. I thought about this when
> I
> > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add these types right away.
> > >
> > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with .NET and C++
> :)
> > > I have some doubts that it actually works as expected, it needs some
> > > checking (will be glad if my concerns are false):
> > >
> > >    - It's true that equality check works properly, but for SQL range
> > >    queries it will break unless some special care is taken on Java
> side:
> > > for
> > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will be converted to -1, which
> will
> > >    break the comparison. Since we don't have unsigned types now, I
> doubt
> > it
> > >    works.
> > >    - There is an obvious cross-platform data loss when "intuitive" type
> > >    mapping is used by a user (u8 corresponds to byte type in .NET, but
> to
> > >    avoid values loss, a user will have to use short type in Java, and
> > > Ignite
> > >    will also need to take care of the range check during
> serialization).
> > I
> > >    think we can even allow to try to deserialize a value into arbitrary
> > > type,
> > >    but throw an exception if the range is out of bounds.
> > >
> > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
> > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once all the details are settled
> > here?
> > >
> > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > >
> > > > Pavel,
> > > >
> > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't be treated correctly for now
> > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
> > > >
> > > > I think we could make "true" support for unsigned types, but they
> will
> > > have
> > > > limitations on the Java side.
> > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map uint64 to Java long primitive,
> > but
> > > to
> > > > BigInteger only.
> > > > As for indices, we could read uint64 to Java long, but treat negative
> > > > values in a different way to preserve correct ordering.
> > > >
> > > > These limitations will affect only mixed environments when .Net and
> > Java
> > > > used to access the data.
> > > > Will this solution address your issues?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupitsyn@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > >
> > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with .NET and
> C++
> > :)
> > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as cache keys and values, as fields
> > and
> > > > > properties,
> > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y clauses) - it works
> > transparently
> > > > for
> > > > > the users.
> > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats those values as corresponding
> > signed
> > > > > types.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in some cases only because there
> are
> > no
> > > > > corresponding type ids.
> > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very simple change to the protocol -
> add
> > > type
> > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as signed counterparts.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise representation is the
> same)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a uByte field and map it to
> > > 'uint8'
> > > > > > column.
> > > > > > Then you set the field value to "250" and put the object into a
> > > table,
> > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a single byte 'int8' column.
> > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it to directly the Java object
> > > field
> > > > of
> > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8 type to Java 'short' type
> > > > > > because the one expected to see "250" as a value which doesn't
> fit
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > signed type.
> > > > > > For uLong the one will need a BigInteger field in Java.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > SQL index either can't treat column value as Java 'byte' as is,
> > > because
> > > > > > after reading you will get a negative value, so it should be cast
> > to
> > > > > short
> > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger for uint64)
> > > > > > So, index on signed type will require a different comparator.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a good idea.
> > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the simple approach I described?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing range for unsigned types then we
> > > could
> > > > > > add a
> > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on schema level (like
> nullability
> > > > flag)
> > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types in storage.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We are going with a separate storage type-system and binary
> > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > type-system, however most of type will match 1 to 1 with
> > storage
> > > > > > (native)
> > > > > > > > type.
> > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either have a separate type id or treat
> > > > > > serialized
> > > > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed or unsigned flag).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Igor,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever foresee the consequences of using
> > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned types perfectly works with
> some
> > > > > > database,
> > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite successor confession with our
> > "native"
> > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he can use the power of Ignite
> Compute
> > > on
> > > > > Java
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either fail to use his unsigned data
> on
> > > Java
> > > > > due
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > face performance issues due to natural Java type system
> > > limitations
> > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I believe that natively supported types with possible value
> > > ranges
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
> > > > > > > > So, the only question is what trade-off we found acceptable:
> > > > > narrowing
> > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use types of wider range on systems
> like
> > > > Java.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor Sapego <
> > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so hard to implement comparison
> > of
> > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > numbers in
> > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not seem to be a big issue
> from
> > my
> > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned types from Java - I think, if
> a
> > > user
> > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to interact with it from Java he
> > knows
> > > > > what
> > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > doing.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from platforms where they have
> native
> > > > > support
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > widely
> > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where users currently have to
> > make a
> > > > > > manual
> > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > casting
> > > > > > > > > or even just stop using unsigned types when they use
> Ignite.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
> > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for those types (basically, just
> add
> > > > more
> > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > ids)
> > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise representation is
> > the
> > > > > same)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned integers, so we can
> simply
> > > say
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative comparison is not supported in
> SQL
> > > > > > (equality
> > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > work).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have i8 or int8 instead of
> Integer.
> > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't address the issue.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types should be portable across
> > different
> > > > > > systems
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type support.
> > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is that unsigned types cover
> > different
> > > > > > ranges.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to introduce a uLong.
> > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big deal to add uLong type
> support
> > > at
> > > > > > > storage
> > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and then use it in e.g. .Net
> > only.
> > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support it in e.g. Java?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range is about (2^-63 .. 2^63)
> > and
> > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > > range
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to restrict range to (0 ..
> 2^63).
> > > This
> > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but doesn't look like a 'real'
> > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse when the user will use uByte,
> as
> > > > > > > limitation
> > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map unsigned types to a type of
> > > wider
> > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative values. E.g. uLong to
> > BigInteger.
> > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive Java type for Long here.
> > > However,
> > > > it
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8 bytes, but have a special
> > > > > comparator
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid unwanted deserialization.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of "long, short, byte" in the
> > > protocol
> > > > > > > > > definition.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style, which is concise and
> > unambiguous:
> > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM Igor Sapego <
> > > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support that. Also, if we are aiming for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger platform-independance,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may want to support bit-notation
> > > > (int32,
> > > > > > > > uint64)?
> > > > > > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a different type on different
> > platforms
> > > > and
> > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often when using ODBC for example).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should support unsigned data types:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have them, but many other languages
> > do,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing number of thin clients this
> is
> > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in current Ignite.NET implementation
> > we
> > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain when it comes to
> metadata,
> > > > binary
> > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to deserialize int as uint when you
> > have
> > > a
> > > > > > class,
> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM Andrey
> Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both serializers use reflection
> API.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will allow users to configure
> static
> > > > schema
> > > > > > > along
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still need to validate user
> > classes
> > > > on
> > > > > > > client
> > > > > > > > > > nodes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in the grid  and reflection
> API
> > > is
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few articles on the internet on
> > how
> > > to
> > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task for supporting GraalVM, and
> > > maybe
> > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM will suggest a solution
> or
> > a
> > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is found, we could allow users
> > to
> > > > > write
> > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I don't think it is a good idea
> > to
> > > > > expose
> > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the public.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM Denis Magda <
> > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the update,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the serializers take into
> > > consideration
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native-image-generation feature of GraalVM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current binary marshaller, we can't
> > even
> > > > > > > generate
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > native
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using our thin client APIs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM Andrey
> > Mashenkov
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to continue discussion of IEP-54
> > > > > > (Schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who is interested had a
> chance
> > to
> > > > get
> > > > > > > > > familiar
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to ask questions
> and
> > > > share
> > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a prototype of serializer [2]
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > > > > data
> > > > > > > > > > layout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I compared 2 approaches to
> > > > > (de)serialize
> > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java reflection/unsafe API and similar
> > to
> > > > one
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second one generates serializer for
> > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > class
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library for compilation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows better results in
> > benchmarks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go with it as default
> > serializer
> > > > and
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation as a fallback if someone
> will
> > > have
> > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of tasks under the
> > umbrella
> > > > > ticket
> > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to create more tickets for
> > > schema
> > > > > > > manager
> > > > > > > > > > modes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation, but would like to clarify
> > some
> > > > > > details.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought schemaManager on each node should
> > > held:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping of "schema version" <-->
> > > > > validated
> > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide schema changes history.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client side. Before any key-value
> API
> > > > > > operation
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a given key-value pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no local-mapping exists for a
> > given
> > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema has a more recent
> version
> > > > then
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be validated against the latest
> > version
> > > > and
> > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object doesn't fit to the latest
> schema
> > > > then
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > depends
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail the operation ('strict'
> > mode)
> > > > or
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a new schema version should be
> > > > > propagated
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server side we usually have no
> > key-value
> > > > > > classes
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change history is available and a
> > > tuple
> > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to upgrade any received
> tuple
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > > last
> > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow nodes to send key-value
> > > pairs
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't receive a schema update yet)
> > > without
> > > > > > > > reverting
> > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node with newer classes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the same?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Ivan
> > Pavlukhin
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not ignore history. We had a
> > thread
> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can resume it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <
> > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks for
> explaining.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we need to have a separate
> > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms substitution. I'll
> > appreciate
> > > > it
> > > > > if
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > start
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing pointers to any relevant IEPs
> and
> > > > > > reasoning
> > > > > > > > > > behind
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM Valentin
> > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the wording in the IEP is a
> > little
> > > > bit
> > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > All
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you should not create nested
> POJOs,
> > > but
> > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > inline
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO that is mapped to a
> > particular
> > > > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this correct? Please let me
> > know
> > > if
> > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the "cache" term, I agree that
> it
> > > is
> > > > > > > > outdated,
> > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can replace it with. "Table"
> is
> > > > > tightly
> > > > > > > > > > associated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional in our case. Do you
> want
> > > to
> > > > > > > create a
> > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM Denis
> > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked the IEP again and have a
> > few
> > > > > > > > questions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects and
> > collections
> > > > are
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > allowed
> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should either be
> inlined
> > > > into
> > > > > > > > schema,
> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL code snippet
> > > > showing
> > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to work?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep using the terms "cache"
> > and
> > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right time to discuss an
> alternate
> > > name
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the "table" should stay
> and
> > > the
> > > > > > > "cache"
> > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one of the primary APIs
> in
> > > > Ignite
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM
> > Valentin
> > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your point. I agree that with
> > the
> > > > > > > automatic
> > > > > > > > > > > updates
> > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last territory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we support automatic
> > > > > evolution,
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a cache without schema and
> > > > > inferring
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other words, we can have both
> > > > > "schema-first"
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59 AM
> Alexey
> > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got your concern
> now.
> > As
> > > > it
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > terminology, I am absolutely fine
> > > with
> > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the approach best. Dynamic or
> > > evolving
> > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > sounds
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > corresponding changes to the IEP
> > once
> > > > we
> > > > > > > settle
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в 11:33, Ivan
> > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for your answer!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My understanding is a little
> bit
> > > > > > different.
> > > > > > > > > Yes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > definitely should be possible.
> > But
> > > I
> > > > > see
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is updated". I treat a
> > > common
> > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data manipulation
> operations
> > > are
> > > > > > > clearly
> > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > interesting capabilities, e.g.
> > > > > preventing
> > > > > > > > > > untended
> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data operations,
> > > restricting
> > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first means that
> schema
> > > > exists
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > advance
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is compliant with it - that's
> > > exactly
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last approach
> mentioned
> > in
> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is inferred from
> > > data.
> > > > > Is
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing approach?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would like to say, that
> my
> > > main
> > > > > > > concern
> > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > far
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > terminology. And I suppose if
> it
> > > > > confuses
> > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused as well. My feeling is
> > > > closer
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47 GMT+03:00,
> > Valentin
> > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an issue with
> that.
> > > > > > > > Schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance and all the stored
> data
> > > is
> > > > > > > > compliant
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is proposed. There are no
> > > > > restrictions
> > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:52
> PM
> > > Ivan
> > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit confused
> > with
> > > > > > > > terminology.
> > > > > > > > > > My
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see part X
> > Semi
> > > > > > > > Structured
> > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema" approach
> > as a
> > > > > kind
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53 GMT+03:00,
> > Denis
> > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please
> > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for
> > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what
> is
> > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
> understanding,
> > > all
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes, if all
> the
> > > ORM
> > > > > > > > > integrations
> > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > internally, then they can
> > > easily
> > > > > > > > translate
> > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE statement
> that
> > > > lists
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data integration is
> > > > already
> > > > > > > based
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be improved once the
> > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of usability
> > > issues.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would revise the
> Hibernate
> > > > > > > integration
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say if it's
> > used
> > > a
> > > > > lot
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind, I'll
> loop
> > > you
> > > > in
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > long
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support for
> Micornaut
> > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came across some
> challenges.
> > > > Just
> > > > > > > watch
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite 3.0.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at
> 5:11
> > > PM
> > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally speaking, I
> > believe
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the issue if
> > > > duplicate
> > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be created
> for
> > a
> > > > > cache,
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the schema
> will
> > > > define
> > > > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which fields are
> > included
> > > > in
> > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be compliant
> with
> > > > this,
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a set of
> > > records,
> > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please
> > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for
> > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what
> is
> > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
> understanding,
> > > all
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at
> > 2:08
> > > PM
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would propose adding
> > > > another
> > > > > > > point
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to the ORM
> > > frameworks
> > > > > > such
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the storage
> > > engine
> > > > > > > > requires
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones that
> > complicate
> > > > the
> > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially if a key
> > object
> > > > > > > comprises
> > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice if the
> > new
> > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single entity object
> when
> > > it
> > > > > > comes
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a key and
> > > value.
> > > > > Just
> > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the essential
> public
> > > APIs
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > single-entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at
> > > 3:50
> > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the big
> changes
> > > > > proposed
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first
> > approach".
> > > To
> > > > > add
> > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this change:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a look
> and
> > > let
> > > > me
> > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions, or
> > > objections.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


-- 
Живи с улыбкой! :D

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Alexey Goncharuk <al...@gmail.com>]

Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0: once we the actual type
information, we can make proper runtime adjustments and conversions to
treat those values as unsigned - it will be just a bit more expensive.

вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>:

> > SQL range queries it will break
> > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
>
> Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons and so on are broken
> for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned this somewhere above.
>
> Again, in my opinion, we can document that SQL is not supported on those
> types,
> end of story.
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Folks, I think this is a reasonable request. I thought about this when I
> > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add these types right away.
> >
> > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with .NET and C++ :)
> > I have some doubts that it actually works as expected, it needs some
> > checking (will be glad if my concerns are false):
> >
> >    - It's true that equality check works properly, but for SQL range
> >    queries it will break unless some special care is taken on Java side:
> > for
> >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will be converted to -1, which will
> >    break the comparison. Since we don't have unsigned types now, I doubt
> it
> >    works.
> >    - There is an obvious cross-platform data loss when "intuitive" type
> >    mapping is used by a user (u8 corresponds to byte type in .NET, but to
> >    avoid values loss, a user will have to use short type in Java, and
> > Ignite
> >    will also need to take care of the range check during serialization).
> I
> >    think we can even allow to try to deserialize a value into arbitrary
> > type,
> >    but throw an exception if the range is out of bounds.
> >
> > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
> > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once all the details are settled
> here?
> >
> > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey Mashenkov <
> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> > >:
> >
> > > Pavel,
> > >
> > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't be treated correctly for now
> > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
> > >
> > > I think we could make "true" support for unsigned types, but they will
> > have
> > > limitations on the Java side.
> > > Thus, the one will not be able to map uint64 to Java long primitive,
> but
> > to
> > > BigInteger only.
> > > As for indices, we could read uint64 to Java long, but treat negative
> > > values in a different way to preserve correct ordering.
> > >
> > > These limitations will affect only mixed environments when .Net and
> Java
> > > used to access the data.
> > > Will this solution address your issues?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > >
> > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with .NET and C++
> :)
> > > > You can use unsigned primitives as cache keys and values, as fields
> and
> > > > properties,
> > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y clauses) - it works
> transparently
> > > for
> > > > the users.
> > > > Java side knows nothing and treats those values as corresponding
> signed
> > > > types.
> > > >
> > > > However, this abstraction leaks in some cases only because there are
> no
> > > > corresponding type ids.
> > > > That is why I'm proposing a very simple change to the protocol - add
> > type
> > > > ids, but handle them the same way as signed counterparts.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Pavel,
> > > > >
> > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise representation is the same)
> > > > >
> > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > >
> > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a uByte field and map it to
> > 'uint8'
> > > > > column.
> > > > > Then you set the field value to "250" and put the object into a
> > table,
> > > > > field value perfectly fits to a single byte 'int8' column.
> > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it to directly the Java object
> > field
> > > of
> > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8 type to Java 'short' type
> > > > > because the one expected to see "250" as a value which doesn't fit
> to
> > > the
> > > > > signed type.
> > > > > For uLong the one will need a BigInteger field in Java.
> > > > >
> > > > > SQL index either can't treat column value as Java 'byte' as is,
> > because
> > > > > after reading you will get a negative value, so it should be cast
> to
> > > > short
> > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger for uint64)
> > > > > So, index on signed type will require a different comparator.
> > > > >
> > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a good idea.
> > > > > > Do you see any problems with the simple approach I described?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing range for unsigned types then we
> > could
> > > > > add a
> > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on schema level (like nullability
> > > flag)
> > > > > > > and treat them as signed types in storage.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We are going with a separate storage type-system and binary
> > > protocol
> > > > > > > type-system, however most of type will match 1 to 1 with
> storage
> > > > > (native)
> > > > > > > type.
> > > > > > > On .Net side you will either have a separate type id or treat
> > > > > serialized
> > > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed or unsigned flag).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Igor,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever foresee the consequences of using
> > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned types perfectly works with some
> > > > > database,
> > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite successor confession with our
> "native"
> > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> > > > > > > But later, he finds that he can use the power of Ignite Compute
> > on
> > > > Java
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> > > > > > > Finally, the user will either fail to use his unsigned data on
> > Java
> > > > due
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > face performance issues due to natural Java type system
> > limitations
> > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I believe that natively supported types with possible value
> > ranges
> > > > and
> > > > > > > limitations should be known.
> > > > > > > So, the only question is what trade-off we found acceptable:
> > > > narrowing
> > > > > > > unsigned type range or use types of wider range on systems like
> > > Java.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor Sapego <
> isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so hard to implement comparison
> of
> > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > numbers in
> > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not seem to be a big issue from
> my
> > > > > > > > perspective.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned types from Java - I think, if a
> > user
> > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > unsigned type
> > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to interact with it from Java he
> knows
> > > > what
> > > > > he
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > doing.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from platforms where they have native
> > > > support
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > widely
> > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where users currently have to
> make a
> > > > > manual
> > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > casting
> > > > > > > > or even just stop using unsigned types when they use Ignite.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
> > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for those types (basically, just add
> > > more
> > > > > type
> > > > > > > > ids)
> > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise representation is
> the
> > > > same)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned integers, so we can simply
> > say
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative comparison is not supported in SQL
> > > > > (equality
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > work).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have i8 or int8 instead of Integer.
> > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't address the issue.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types should be portable across
> different
> > > > > systems
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type support.
> > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is that unsigned types cover
> different
> > > > > ranges.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to introduce a uLong.
> > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big deal to add uLong type support
> > at
> > > > > > storage
> > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and then use it in e.g. .Net
> only.
> > > > > > > > > > But how we could support it in e.g. Java?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range is about (2^-63 .. 2^63)
> and
> > > > uLong
> > > > > > > range
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to restrict range to (0 .. 2^63).
> > This
> > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but doesn't look like a 'real'
> > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse when the user will use uByte, as
> > > > > > limitation
> > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map unsigned types to a type of
> > wider
> > > > > type
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative values. E.g. uLong to
> BigInteger.
> > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive Java type for Long here.
> > However,
> > > it
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8 bytes, but have a special
> > > > comparator
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid unwanted deserialization.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of "long, short, byte" in the
> > protocol
> > > > > > > > definition.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style, which is concise and
> unambiguous:
> > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM Igor Sapego <
> > > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support that. Also, if we are aiming for
> > > > > > > > > > > > stronger platform-independance,
> > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may want to support bit-notation
> > > (int32,
> > > > > > > uint64)?
> > > > > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > > > > > example
> > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a different type on different
> platforms
> > > and
> > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often when using ODBC for example).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should support unsigned data types:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have them, but many other languages
> do,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing number of thin clients this is
> > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in current Ignite.NET implementation
> we
> > > > store
> > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > values
> > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain when it comes to metadata,
> > > binary
> > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to deserialize int as uint when you
> have
> > a
> > > > > class,
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both serializers use reflection API.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will allow users to configure static
> > > schema
> > > > > > along
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still need to validate user
> classes
> > > on
> > > > > > client
> > > > > > > > > nodes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in the grid  and reflection API
> > is
> > > > the
> > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few articles on the internet on
> how
> > to
> > > > > > enable
> > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task for supporting GraalVM, and
> > maybe
> > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM will suggest a solution or
> a
> > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is found, we could allow users
> to
> > > > write
> > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I don't think it is a good idea
> to
> > > > expose
> > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the public.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM Denis Magda <
> > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the update,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the serializers take into
> > consideration
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native-image-generation feature of GraalVM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current binary marshaller, we can't
> even
> > > > > > generate
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > native
> > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using our thin client APIs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM Andrey
> Mashenkov
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to continue discussion of IEP-54
> > > > > (Schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who is interested had a chance
> to
> > > get
> > > > > > > > familiar
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to ask questions and
> > > share
> > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > ideas.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a prototype of serializer [2]
> for
> > > the
> > > > > > data
> > > > > > > > > layout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I compared 2 approaches to
> > > > (de)serialize
> > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java reflection/unsafe API and similar
> to
> > > one
> > > > we
> > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second one generates serializer for
> > > > > particular
> > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > class
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library for compilation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows better results in
> benchmarks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go with it as default
> serializer
> > > and
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation as a fallback if someone will
> > have
> > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of tasks under the
> umbrella
> > > > ticket
> > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > > > > > waiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to create more tickets for
> > schema
> > > > > > manager
> > > > > > > > > modes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation, but would like to clarify
> some
> > > > > details.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought schemaManager on each node should
> > held:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping of "schema version" <-->
> > > > validated
> > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide schema changes history.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client side. Before any key-value API
> > > > > operation
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a given key-value pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no local-mapping exists for a
> given
> > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema has a more recent version
> > > then
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be validated against the latest
> version
> > > and
> > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object doesn't fit to the latest schema
> > > then
> > > > it
> > > > > > > > depends
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail the operation ('strict'
> mode)
> > > or
> > > > a
> > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a new schema version should be
> > > > propagated
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server side we usually have no
> key-value
> > > > > classes
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change history is available and a
> > tuple
> > > > has
> > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to upgrade any received tuple
> to
> > > the
> > > > > > last
> > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow nodes to send key-value
> > pairs
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't receive a schema update yet)
> > without
> > > > > > > reverting
> > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node with newer classes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the same?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Ivan
> Pavlukhin
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not ignore history. We had a
> thread
> > > [1]
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can resume it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <
> > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks for explaining.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we need to have a separate
> > > > discussion
> > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms substitution. I'll
> appreciate
> > > it
> > > > if
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > start
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing pointers to any relevant IEPs and
> > > > > reasoning
> > > > > > > > > behind
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM Valentin
> > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the wording in the IEP is a
> little
> > > bit
> > > > > > > > > confusing.
> > > > > > > > > > > All
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you should not create nested POJOs,
> > but
> > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > inline
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO that is mapped to a
> particular
> > > > > schema.
> > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this correct? Please let me
> know
> > if
> > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the "cache" term, I agree that it
> > is
> > > > > > > outdated,
> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can replace it with. "Table" is
> > > > tightly
> > > > > > > > > associated
> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional in our case. Do you want
> > to
> > > > > > create a
> > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM Denis
> > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked the IEP again and have a
> few
> > > > > > > questions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects and
> collections
> > > are
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > allowed
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should either be inlined
> > > into
> > > > > > > schema,
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL code snippet
> > > showing
> > > > > how
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to work?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep using the terms "cache"
> and
> > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right time to discuss an alternate
> > name
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the "table" should stay and
> > the
> > > > > > "cache"
> > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one of the primary APIs in
> > > Ignite
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > DDL
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM
> Valentin
> > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your point. I agree that with
> the
> > > > > > automatic
> > > > > > > > > > updates
> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last territory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we support automatic
> > > > evolution,
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a cache without schema and
> > > > inferring
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other words, we can have both
> > > > "schema-first"
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59 AM Alexey
> > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got your concern now.
> As
> > > it
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > terminology, I am absolutely fine
> > with
> > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the approach best. Dynamic or
> > evolving
> > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > sounds
> > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > corresponding changes to the IEP
> once
> > > we
> > > > > > settle
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в 11:33, Ivan
> > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for your answer!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My understanding is a little bit
> > > > > different.
> > > > > > > > Yes,
> > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > definitely should be possible.
> But
> > I
> > > > see
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is updated". I treat a
> > common
> > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data manipulation operations
> > are
> > > > > > clearly
> > > > > > > > > > > separated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > interesting capabilities, e.g.
> > > > preventing
> > > > > > > > > untended
> > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data operations,
> > restricting
> > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first means that schema
> > > exists
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > advance
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is compliant with it - that's
> > exactly
> > > > > what
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last approach mentioned
> in
> > > [1]
> > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > assumes
> > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is inferred from
> > data.
> > > > Is
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing approach?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would like to say, that my
> > main
> > > > > > concern
> > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > far
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > terminology. And I suppose if it
> > > > confuses
> > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused as well. My feeling is
> > > closer
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47 GMT+03:00,
> Valentin
> > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an issue with that.
> > > > > > > Schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance and all the stored data
> > is
> > > > > > > compliant
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is proposed. There are no
> > > > restrictions
> > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:52 PM
> > Ivan
> > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit confused
> with
> > > > > > > terminology.
> > > > > > > > > My
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see part X
> Semi
> > > > > > > Structured
> > > > > > > > > > Data).
> > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema" approach
> as a
> > > > kind
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53 GMT+03:00,
> Denis
> > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please
> > > > elaborate
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for
> > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is
> > > > missing
> > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding,
> > all
> > > > you
> > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes, if all the
> > ORM
> > > > > > > > integrations
> > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > internally, then they can
> > easily
> > > > > > > translate
> > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE statement that
> > > lists
> > > > > all
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data integration is
> > > already
> > > > > > based
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be improved once the
> > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of usability
> > issues.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would revise the Hibernate
> > > > > > integration
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say if it's
> used
> > a
> > > > lot
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind, I'll loop
> > you
> > > in
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > long
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support for Micornaut
> > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came across some challenges.
> > > Just
> > > > > > watch
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite 3.0.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 5:11
> > PM
> > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally speaking, I
> believe
> > > > that
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the issue if
> > > duplicate
> > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be created for
> a
> > > > cache,
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the schema will
> > > define
> > > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which fields are
> included
> > > in
> > > > > case
> > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be compliant with
> > > this,
> > > > > so
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > becomes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a set of
> > records,
> > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please
> > > > elaborate
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for
> > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is
> > > > missing
> > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding,
> > all
> > > > you
> > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at
> 2:08
> > PM
> > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would propose adding
> > > another
> > > > > > point
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to the ORM
> > frameworks
> > > > > such
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the storage
> > engine
> > > > > > > requires
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones that
> complicate
> > > the
> > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially if a key
> object
> > > > > > comprises
> > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice if the
> new
> > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single entity object when
> > it
> > > > > comes
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a key and
> > value.
> > > > Just
> > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the essential public
> > APIs
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > single-entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at
> > 3:50
> > > PM
> > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the big changes
> > > > proposed
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first
> approach".
> > To
> > > > add
> > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this change:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a look and
> > let
> > > me
> > > > > > know
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions, or
> > objections.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >
> >
>

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>]

> SQL range queries it will break
> WHERE x > y may return wrong results

Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons and so on are broken
for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned this somewhere above.

Again, in my opinion, we can document that SQL is not supported on those
types,
end of story.

On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey Goncharuk <al...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Folks, I think this is a reasonable request. I thought about this when I
> was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add these types right away.
>
> > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with .NET and C++ :)
> I have some doubts that it actually works as expected, it needs some
> checking (will be glad if my concerns are false):
>
>    - It's true that equality check works properly, but for SQL range
>    queries it will break unless some special care is taken on Java side:
> for
>    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will be converted to -1, which will
>    break the comparison. Since we don't have unsigned types now, I doubt it
>    works.
>    - There is an obvious cross-platform data loss when "intuitive" type
>    mapping is used by a user (u8 corresponds to byte type in .NET, but to
>    avoid values loss, a user will have to use short type in Java, and
> Ignite
>    will also need to take care of the range check during serialization). I
>    think we can even allow to try to deserialize a value into arbitrary
> type,
>    but throw an exception if the range is out of bounds.
>
> Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
> Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once all the details are settled here?
>
> вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey Mashenkov <andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com
> >:
>
> > Pavel,
> >
> > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't be treated correctly for now
> > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
> >
> > I think we could make "true" support for unsigned types, but they will
> have
> > limitations on the Java side.
> > Thus, the one will not be able to map uint64 to Java long primitive, but
> to
> > BigInteger only.
> > As for indices, we could read uint64 to Java long, but treat negative
> > values in a different way to preserve correct ordering.
> >
> > These limitations will affect only mixed environments when .Net and Java
> > used to access the data.
> > Will this solution address your issues?
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > That way is impossible.
> > >
> > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with .NET and C++ :)
> > > You can use unsigned primitives as cache keys and values, as fields and
> > > properties,
> > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y clauses) - it works transparently
> > for
> > > the users.
> > > Java side knows nothing and treats those values as corresponding signed
> > > types.
> > >
> > > However, this abstraction leaks in some cases only because there are no
> > > corresponding type ids.
> > > That is why I'm proposing a very simple change to the protocol - add
> type
> > > ids, but handle them the same way as signed counterparts.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Pavel,
> > > >
> > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise representation is the same)
> > > >
> > > > That way is impossible.
> > > >
> > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a uByte field and map it to
> 'uint8'
> > > > column.
> > > > Then you set the field value to "250" and put the object into a
> table,
> > > > field value perfectly fits to a single byte 'int8' column.
> > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it to directly the Java object
> field
> > of
> > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8 type to Java 'short' type
> > > > because the one expected to see "250" as a value which doesn't fit to
> > the
> > > > signed type.
> > > > For uLong the one will need a BigInteger field in Java.
> > > >
> > > > SQL index either can't treat column value as Java 'byte' as is,
> because
> > > > after reading you will get a negative value, so it should be cast to
> > > short
> > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger for uint64)
> > > > So, index on signed type will require a different comparator.
> > > >
> > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupitsyn@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Andrey,
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a good idea.
> > > > > Do you see any problems with the simple approach I described?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing range for unsigned types then we
> could
> > > > add a
> > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on schema level (like nullability
> > flag)
> > > > > > and treat them as signed types in storage.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We are going with a separate storage type-system and binary
> > protocol
> > > > > > type-system, however most of type will match 1 to 1 with storage
> > > > (native)
> > > > > > type.
> > > > > > On .Net side you will either have a separate type id or treat
> > > > serialized
> > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed or unsigned flag).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Igor,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever foresee the consequences of using
> > > unsigned
> > > > > > types.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned types perfectly works with some
> > > > database,
> > > > > > then he turns into Ignite successor confession with our "native"
> > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> > > > > > But later, he finds that he can use the power of Ignite Compute
> on
> > > Java
> > > > > for
> > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> > > > > > Finally, the user will either fail to use his unsigned data on
> Java
> > > due
> > > > > or
> > > > > > face performance issues due to natural Java type system
> limitations
> > > > e.g.
> > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I believe that natively supported types with possible value
> ranges
> > > and
> > > > > > limitations should be known.
> > > > > > So, the only question is what trade-off we found acceptable:
> > > narrowing
> > > > > > unsigned type range or use types of wider range on systems like
> > Java.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor Sapego <is...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so hard to implement comparison of
> > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > numbers in
> > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not seem to be a big issue from my
> > > > > > > perspective.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned types from Java - I think, if a
> user
> > > > uses
> > > > > > > unsigned type
> > > > > > > in a schema and is going to interact with it from Java he knows
> > > what
> > > > he
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > doing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from platforms where they have native
> > > support
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > widely
> > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where users currently have to make a
> > > > manual
> > > > > > type
> > > > > > > casting
> > > > > > > or even just stop using unsigned types when they use Ignite.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
> > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for those types (basically, just add
> > more
> > > > type
> > > > > > > ids)
> > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise representation is the
> > > same)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned integers, so we can simply
> say
> > > that
> > > > > > > > unsigned value relative comparison is not supported in SQL
> > > > (equality
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > work).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have i8 or int8 instead of Integer.
> > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't address the issue.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I agree internal types should be portable across different
> > > > systems
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > without unsigned type support.
> > > > > > > > > The only issue here is that unsigned types cover different
> > > > ranges.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to introduce a uLong.
> > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big deal to add uLong type support
> at
> > > > > storage
> > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and then use it in e.g. .Net only.
> > > > > > > > > But how we could support it in e.g. Java?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range is about (2^-63 .. 2^63) and
> > > uLong
> > > > > > range
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to restrict range to (0 .. 2^63).
> This
> > > > > allows
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but doesn't look like a 'real'
> > > unsigned
> > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse when the user will use uByte, as
> > > > > limitation
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map unsigned types to a type of
> wider
> > > > type
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative values. E.g. uLong to BigInteger.
> > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive Java type for Long here.
> However,
> > it
> > > > is
> > > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8 bytes, but have a special
> > > comparator
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid unwanted deserialization.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of "long, short, byte" in the
> protocol
> > > > > > > definition.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style, which is concise and unambiguous:
> > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM Igor Sapego <
> > > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I totally support that. Also, if we are aiming for
> > > > > > > > > > > stronger platform-independance,
> > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may want to support bit-notation
> > (int32,
> > > > > > uint64)?
> > > > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > > > > example
> > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a different type on different platforms
> > and
> > > > > it's
> > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often when using ODBC for example).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should support unsigned data types:
> > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have them, but many other languages do,
> > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing number of thin clients this is
> > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in current Ignite.NET implementation we
> > > store
> > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > values
> > > > > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
> > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain when it comes to metadata,
> > binary
> > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to deserialize int as uint when you have
> a
> > > > class,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both serializers use reflection API.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will allow users to configure static
> > schema
> > > > > along
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still need to validate user classes
> > on
> > > > > client
> > > > > > > > nodes
> > > > > > > > > > > > against
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in the grid  and reflection API
> is
> > > the
> > > > > only
> > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few articles on the internet on how
> to
> > > > > enable
> > > > > > > > > > reflection
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task for supporting GraalVM, and
> maybe
> > > > > someone
> > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM will suggest a solution or a
> > > proper
> > > > > > > > > workaround.
> > > > > > > > > > > Or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is found, we could allow users to
> > > write
> > > > > it's
> > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I don't think it is a good idea to
> > > expose
> > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the public.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM Denis Magda <
> > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the update,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the serializers take into
> consideration
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > native-image-generation feature of GraalVM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current binary marshaller, we can't even
> > > > > generate
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > native
> > > > > > > > > > > > image
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using our thin client APIs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM Andrey Mashenkov
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to continue discussion of IEP-54
> > > > (Schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > approach).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who is interested had a chance to
> > get
> > > > > > > familiar
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to ask questions and
> > share
> > > > your
> > > > > > > > ideas.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a prototype of serializer [2] for
> > the
> > > > > data
> > > > > > > > layout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I compared 2 approaches to
> > > (de)serialize
> > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java reflection/unsafe API and similar to
> > one
> > > we
> > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second one generates serializer for
> > > > particular
> > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > class
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library for compilation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows better results in benchmarks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go with it as default serializer
> > and
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation as a fallback if someone will
> have
> > > > > issues
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of tasks under the umbrella
> > > ticket
> > > > > [3]
> > > > > > > > > waiting
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to create more tickets for
> schema
> > > > > manager
> > > > > > > > modes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation, but would like to clarify some
> > > > details.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought schemaManager on each node should
> held:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping of "schema version" <-->
> > > validated
> > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide schema changes history.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client side. Before any key-value API
> > > > operation
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a given key-value pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no local-mapping exists for a given
> > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema has a more recent version
> > then
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be validated against the latest version
> > and
> > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object doesn't fit to the latest schema
> > then
> > > it
> > > > > > > depends
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail the operation ('strict' mode)
> > or
> > > a
> > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a new schema version should be
> > > propagated
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server side we usually have no key-value
> > > > classes
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change history is available and a
> tuple
> > > has
> > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > version,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to upgrade any received tuple to
> > the
> > > > > last
> > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow nodes to send key-value
> pairs
> > > of
> > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't receive a schema update yet)
> without
> > > > > > reverting
> > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node with newer classes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the same?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Ivan Pavlukhin
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not ignore history. We had a thread
> > [1]
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > bright
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can resume it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <
> > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks for explaining.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we need to have a separate
> > > discussion
> > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms substitution. I'll appreciate
> > it
> > > if
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > > start
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing pointers to any relevant IEPs and
> > > > reasoning
> > > > > > > > behind
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM Valentin
> > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the wording in the IEP is a little
> > bit
> > > > > > > > confusing.
> > > > > > > > > > All
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you should not create nested POJOs,
> but
> > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > inline
> > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO that is mapped to a particular
> > > > schema.
> > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this correct? Please let me know
> if
> > > I'm
> > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the "cache" term, I agree that it
> is
> > > > > > outdated,
> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can replace it with. "Table" is
> > > tightly
> > > > > > > > associated
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional in our case. Do you want
> to
> > > > > create a
> > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM Denis
> Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked the IEP again and have a few
> > > > > > questions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects and collections
> > are
> > > > not
> > > > > > > > allowed
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should either be inlined
> > into
> > > > > > schema,
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL code snippet
> > showing
> > > > how
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > inlining
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to work?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep using the terms "cache" and
> > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > throughout
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right time to discuss an alternate
> name
> > > > that
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the "table" should stay and
> the
> > > > > "cache"
> > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one of the primary APIs in
> > Ignite
> > > > and
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > DDL
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM Valentin
> > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your point. I agree that with the
> > > > > automatic
> > > > > > > > > updates
> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last territory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we support automatic
> > > evolution,
> > > > we
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a cache without schema and
> > > inferring
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other words, we can have both
> > > "schema-first"
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59 AM Alexey
> > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got your concern now. As
> > it
> > > is
> > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > terminology, I am absolutely fine
> with
> > > > > changing
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the approach best. Dynamic or
> evolving
> > > > schema
> > > > > > > > sounds
> > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > corresponding changes to the IEP once
> > we
> > > > > settle
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в 11:33, Ivan
> > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for your answer!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My understanding is a little bit
> > > > different.
> > > > > > > Yes,
> > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > definitely should be possible. But
> I
> > > see
> > > > a
> > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is updated". I treat a
> common
> > > SQL
> > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data manipulation operations
> are
> > > > > clearly
> > > > > > > > > > separated
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > interesting capabilities, e.g.
> > > preventing
> > > > > > > > untended
> > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data operations,
> restricting
> > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > permissions
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first means that schema
> > exists
> > > > in
> > > > > > > > advance
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is compliant with it - that's
> exactly
> > > > what
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last approach mentioned in
> > [1]
> > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > assumes
> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is inferred from
> data.
> > > Is
> > > > > not
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing approach?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would like to say, that my
> main
> > > > > concern
> > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > far
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > terminology. And I suppose if it
> > > confuses
> > > > > me
> > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused as well. My feeling is
> > closer
> > > to
> > > > > > > > "dynamic
> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47 GMT+03:00, Valentin
> > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an issue with that.
> > > > > > Schema-first
> > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance and all the stored data
> is
> > > > > > compliant
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is proposed. There are no
> > > restrictions
> > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:52 PM
> Ivan
> > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit confused with
> > > > > > terminology.
> > > > > > > > My
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see part X Semi
> > > > > > Structured
> > > > > > > > > Data).
> > > > > > > > > > > Can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema" approach as a
> > > kind
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53 GMT+03:00, Denis
> > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please
> > > elaborate
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for
> > Hibernate
> > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is
> > > missing
> > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding,
> all
> > > you
> > > > > need
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes, if all the
> ORM
> > > > > > > integrations
> > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > internally, then they can
> easily
> > > > > > translate
> > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE statement that
> > lists
> > > > all
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > object's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data integration is
> > already
> > > > > based
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be improved once the
> > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of usability
> issues.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would revise the Hibernate
> > > > > integration
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say if it's used
> a
> > > lot
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind, I'll loop
> you
> > in
> > > > as
> > > > > > long
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > you've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support for Micornaut
> > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came across some challenges.
> > Just
> > > > > watch
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite 3.0.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 5:11
> PM
> > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally speaking, I believe
> > > that
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the issue if
> > duplicate
> > > > > fields
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be created for a
> > > cache,
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the schema will
> > define
> > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which fields are included
> > in
> > > > case
> > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be compliant with
> > this,
> > > > so
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > becomes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a set of
> records,
> > > > rather
> > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please
> > > elaborate
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for
> > Hibernate
> > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is
> > > missing
> > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding,
> all
> > > you
> > > > > need
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:08
> PM
> > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would propose adding
> > another
> > > > > point
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to the ORM
> frameworks
> > > > such
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the storage
> engine
> > > > > > requires
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones that complicate
> > the
> > > > > usage
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially if a key object
> > > > > comprises
> > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice if the new
> > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single entity object when
> it
> > > > comes
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a key and
> value.
> > > Just
> > > > > > want
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the essential public
> APIs
> > > > that
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > single-entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at
> 3:50
> > PM
> > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the big changes
> > > proposed
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first approach".
> To
> > > add
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this change:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a look and
> let
> > me
> > > > > know
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions, or
> objections.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >
>

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Alexey Goncharuk <al...@gmail.com>]

Folks, I think this is a reasonable request. I thought about this when I
was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add these types right away.

> That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with .NET and C++ :)
I have some doubts that it actually works as expected, it needs some
checking (will be glad if my concerns are false):

   - It's true that equality check works properly, but for SQL range
   queries it will break unless some special care is taken on Java side: for
   u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will be converted to -1, which will
   break the comparison. Since we don't have unsigned types now, I doubt it
   works.
   - There is an obvious cross-platform data loss when "intuitive" type
   mapping is used by a user (u8 corresponds to byte type in .NET, but to
   avoid values loss, a user will have to use short type in Java, and Ignite
   will also need to take care of the range check during serialization). I
   think we can even allow to try to deserialize a value into arbitrary type,
   but throw an exception if the range is out of bounds.

Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once all the details are settled here?

вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>:

> Pavel,
>
> I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't be treated correctly for now
> (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
>
> I think we could make "true" support for unsigned types, but they will have
> limitations on the Java side.
> Thus, the one will not be able to map uint64 to Java long primitive, but to
> BigInteger only.
> As for indices, we could read uint64 to Java long, but treat negative
> values in a different way to preserve correct ordering.
>
> These limitations will affect only mixed environments when .Net and Java
> used to access the data.
> Will this solution address your issues?
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > > That way is impossible.
> >
> > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with .NET and C++ :)
> > You can use unsigned primitives as cache keys and values, as fields and
> > properties,
> > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y clauses) - it works transparently
> for
> > the users.
> > Java side knows nothing and treats those values as corresponding signed
> > types.
> >
> > However, this abstraction leaks in some cases only because there are no
> > corresponding type ids.
> > That is why I'm proposing a very simple change to the protocol - add type
> > ids, but handle them the same way as signed counterparts.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Pavel,
> > >
> > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise representation is the same)
> > >
> > > That way is impossible.
> > >
> > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a uByte field and map it to 'uint8'
> > > column.
> > > Then you set the field value to "250" and put the object into a table,
> > > field value perfectly fits to a single byte 'int8' column.
> > > But in Java you can't deserialize it to directly the Java object field
> of
> > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8 type to Java 'short' type
> > > because the one expected to see "250" as a value which doesn't fit to
> the
> > > signed type.
> > > For uLong the one will need a BigInteger field in Java.
> > >
> > > SQL index either can't treat column value as Java 'byte' as is, because
> > > after reading you will get a negative value, so it should be cast to
> > short
> > > at first. (converted to BigInteger for uint64)
> > > So, index on signed type will require a different comparator.
> > >
> > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Andrey,
> > > >
> > > > I don't think range narrowing is a good idea.
> > > > Do you see any problems with the simple approach I described?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Pavel,
> > > > >
> > > > > If you are ok with narrowing range for unsigned types then we could
> > > add a
> > > > > constraint for unsigned types on schema level (like nullability
> flag)
> > > > > and treat them as signed types in storage.
> > > > >
> > > > > We are going with a separate storage type-system and binary
> protocol
> > > > > type-system, however most of type will match 1 to 1 with storage
> > > (native)
> > > > > type.
> > > > > On .Net side you will either have a separate type id or treat
> > > serialized
> > > > > value regarding a schema (signed or unsigned flag).
> > > > >
> > > > > Igor,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not sure users can ever foresee the consequences of using
> > unsigned
> > > > > types.
> > > > >
> > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned types perfectly works with some
> > > database,
> > > > > then he turns into Ignite successor confession with our "native"
> > > > > unsigned-types support.
> > > > > But later, he finds that he can use the power of Ignite Compute on
> > Java
> > > > for
> > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> > > > > Finally, the user will either fail to use his unsigned data on Java
> > due
> > > > or
> > > > > face performance issues due to natural Java type system limitations
> > > e.g.
> > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
> > > > >
> > > > > I believe that natively supported types with possible value ranges
> > and
> > > > > limitations should be known.
> > > > > So, the only question is what trade-off we found acceptable:
> > narrowing
> > > > > unsigned type range or use types of wider range on systems like
> Java.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor Sapego <is...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so hard to implement comparison of
> > > unsigned
> > > > > > numbers in
> > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not seem to be a big issue from my
> > > > > > perspective.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned types from Java - I think, if a user
> > > uses
> > > > > > unsigned type
> > > > > > in a schema and is going to interact with it from Java he knows
> > what
> > > he
> > > > > is
> > > > > > doing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mostly they are for use from platforms where they have native
> > support
> > > > and
> > > > > > widely
> > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where users currently have to make a
> > > manual
> > > > > type
> > > > > > casting
> > > > > > or even just stop using unsigned types when they use Ignite.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > Igor
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
> > > > > > > - Add protocol support for those types (basically, just add
> more
> > > type
> > > > > > ids)
> > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise representation is the
> > same)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned integers, so we can simply say
> > that
> > > > > > > unsigned value relative comparison is not supported in SQL
> > > (equality
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > work).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have i8 or int8 instead of Integer.
> > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't address the issue.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I agree internal types should be portable across different
> > > systems
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > without unsigned type support.
> > > > > > > > The only issue here is that unsigned types cover different
> > > ranges.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to introduce a uLong.
> > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big deal to add uLong type support at
> > > > storage
> > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and then use it in e.g. .Net only.
> > > > > > > > But how we could support it in e.g. Java?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range is about (2^-63 .. 2^63) and
> > uLong
> > > > > range
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to restrict range to (0 .. 2^63). This
> > > > allows
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> > > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but doesn't look like a 'real'
> > unsigned
> > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > > support. Things go worse when the user will use uByte, as
> > > > limitation
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map unsigned types to a type of wider
> > > type
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > a constraint for negative values. E.g. uLong to BigInteger.
> > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive Java type for Long here. However,
> it
> > > is
> > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8 bytes, but have a special
> > comparator
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid unwanted deserialization.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of "long, short, byte" in the protocol
> > > > > > definition.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style, which is concise and unambiguous:
> > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM Igor Sapego <
> > > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I totally support that. Also, if we are aiming for
> > > > > > > > > > stronger platform-independance,
> > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may want to support bit-notation
> (int32,
> > > > > uint64)?
> > > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > > > example
> > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a different type on different platforms
> and
> > > > it's
> > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > confuse
> > > > > > > > > > them (happens often when using ODBC for example).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I think we should support unsigned data types:
> > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have them, but many other languages do,
> > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing number of thin clients this is
> > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > For example, in current Ignite.NET implementation we
> > store
> > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > values
> > > > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
> > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain when it comes to metadata,
> binary
> > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to deserialize int as uint when you have a
> > > class,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both serializers use reflection API.
> > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will allow users to configure static
> schema
> > > > along
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still need to validate user classes
> on
> > > > client
> > > > > > > nodes
> > > > > > > > > > > against
> > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in the grid  and reflection API is
> > the
> > > > only
> > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few articles on the internet on how to
> > > > enable
> > > > > > > > > reflection
> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task for supporting GraalVM, and maybe
> > > > someone
> > > > > > who
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM will suggest a solution or a
> > proper
> > > > > > > > workaround.
> > > > > > > > > > Or
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is found, we could allow users to
> > write
> > > > it's
> > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I don't think it is a good idea to
> > expose
> > > > any
> > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the public.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM Denis Magda <
> > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the update,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the serializers take into consideration
> > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > native-image-generation feature of GraalVM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current binary marshaller, we can't even
> > > > generate
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > native
> > > > > > > > > > > image
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using our thin client APIs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to continue discussion of IEP-54
> > > (Schema-first
> > > > > > > > > approach).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who is interested had a chance to
> get
> > > > > > familiar
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to ask questions and
> share
> > > your
> > > > > > > ideas.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a prototype of serializer [2] for
> the
> > > > data
> > > > > > > layout
> > > > > > > > > > > > described
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I compared 2 approaches to
> > (de)serialize
> > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java reflection/unsafe API and similar to
> one
> > we
> > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second one generates serializer for
> > > particular
> > > > > user
> > > > > > > > class
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library for compilation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows better results in benchmarks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go with it as default serializer
> and
> > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation as a fallback if someone will have
> > > > issues
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of tasks under the umbrella
> > ticket
> > > > [3]
> > > > > > > > waiting
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to create more tickets for schema
> > > > manager
> > > > > > > modes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation, but would like to clarify some
> > > details.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought schemaManager on each node should held:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping of "schema version" <-->
> > validated
> > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > key/value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide schema changes history.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client side. Before any key-value API
> > > operation
> > > > we
> > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a given key-value pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no local-mapping exists for a given
> > > > key-value
> > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema has a more recent version
> then
> > > the
> > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be validated against the latest version
> and
> > > > local
> > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object doesn't fit to the latest schema
> then
> > it
> > > > > > depends
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail the operation ('strict' mode)
> or
> > a
> > > > new
> > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a new schema version should be
> > propagated
> > > > to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server side we usually have no key-value
> > > classes
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > operate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change history is available and a tuple
> > has
> > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > version,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to upgrade any received tuple to
> the
> > > > last
> > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow nodes to send key-value pairs
> > of
> > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't receive a schema update yet) without
> > > > > reverting
> > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node with newer classes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the same?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Ivan Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not ignore history. We had a thread
> [1]
> > > > with
> > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > bright
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can resume it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <
> > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks for explaining.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we need to have a separate
> > discussion
> > > > > thread
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms substitution. I'll appreciate
> it
> > if
> > > > you
> > > > > > > start
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing pointers to any relevant IEPs and
> > > reasoning
> > > > > > > behind
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM Valentin
> > > Kulichenko
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the wording in the IEP is a little
> bit
> > > > > > > confusing.
> > > > > > > > > All
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you should not create nested POJOs, but
> > > > rather
> > > > > > > inline
> > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO that is mapped to a particular
> > > schema.
> > > > > In
> > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > words,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this correct? Please let me know if
> > I'm
> > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the "cache" term, I agree that it is
> > > > > outdated,
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can replace it with. "Table" is
> > tightly
> > > > > > > associated
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional in our case. Do you want to
> > > > create a
> > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM Denis Magda <
> > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked the IEP again and have a few
> > > > > questions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects and collections
> are
> > > not
> > > > > > > allowed
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > column
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should either be inlined
> into
> > > > > schema,
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > stored
> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL code snippet
> showing
> > > how
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > inlining
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to work?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep using the terms "cache" and
> > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > throughout
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right time to discuss an alternate name
> > > that
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the "table" should stay and the
> > > > "cache"
> > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one of the primary APIs in
> Ignite
> > > and
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > DDL
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM Valentin
> > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your point. I agree that with the
> > > > automatic
> > > > > > > > updates
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last territory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we support automatic
> > evolution,
> > > we
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a cache without schema and
> > inferring
> > > > it
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other words, we can have both
> > "schema-first"
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59 AM Alexey
> > > > Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got your concern now. As
> it
> > is
> > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > terminology, I am absolutely fine with
> > > > changing
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the approach best. Dynamic or evolving
> > > schema
> > > > > > > sounds
> > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > corresponding changes to the IEP once
> we
> > > > settle
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > name.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в 11:33, Ivan
> > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for your answer!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My understanding is a little bit
> > > different.
> > > > > > Yes,
> > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > definitely should be possible. But I
> > see
> > > a
> > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > > difference
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is updated". I treat a common
> > SQL
> > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data manipulation operations are
> > > > clearly
> > > > > > > > > separated
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > interesting capabilities, e.g.
> > preventing
> > > > > > > untended
> > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data operations, restricting
> > > user
> > > > > > > > > permissions
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first means that schema
> exists
> > > in
> > > > > > > advance
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is compliant with it - that's exactly
> > > what
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > proposed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last approach mentioned in
> [1]
> > > > also
> > > > > > > > assumes
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is inferred from data.
> > Is
> > > > not
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing approach?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would like to say, that my main
> > > > concern
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > far
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > terminology. And I suppose if it
> > confuses
> > > > me
> > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused as well. My feeling is
> closer
> > to
> > > > > > > "dynamic
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47 GMT+03:00, Valentin
> > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an issue with that.
> > > > > Schema-first
> > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance and all the stored data is
> > > > > compliant
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is proposed. There are no
> > restrictions
> > > > > > > > prohibiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:52 PM Ivan
> > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit confused with
> > > > > terminology.
> > > > > > > My
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see part X Semi
> > > > > Structured
> > > > > > > > Data).
> > > > > > > > > > Can
> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema" approach as a
> > kind
> > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53 GMT+03:00, Denis
> > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please
> > elaborate
> > > > on
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for
> Hibernate
> > > > > running
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is
> > missing
> > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all
> > you
> > > > need
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes, if all the ORM
> > > > > > integrations
> > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > internally, then they can easily
> > > > > translate
> > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > Entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE statement that
> lists
> > > all
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > object's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data integration is
> already
> > > > based
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be improved once the
> > schema-first
> > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of usability issues.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would revise the Hibernate
> > > > integration
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say if it's used a
> > lot
> > > > but
> > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind, I'll loop you
> in
> > > as
> > > > > long
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > you've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support for Micornaut
> Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came across some challenges.
> Just
> > > > watch
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite 3.0.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 5:11 PM
> > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally speaking, I believe
> > that
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the issue if
> duplicate
> > > > fields
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be created for a
> > cache,
> > > > not
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the schema will
> define
> > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which fields are included
> in
> > > case
> > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be compliant with
> this,
> > > so
> > > > it
> > > > > > > > becomes
> > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a set of records,
> > > rather
> > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please
> > elaborate
> > > > on
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for
> Hibernate
> > > > > running
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is
> > missing
> > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all
> > you
> > > > need
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:08 PM
> > > Denis
> > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would propose adding
> another
> > > > point
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to the ORM frameworks
> > > such
> > > > as
> > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the storage engine
> > > > > requires
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones that complicate
> the
> > > > usage
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially if a key object
> > > > comprises
> > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice if the new
> > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single entity object when it
> > > comes
> > > > to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > With
> > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a key and value.
> > Just
> > > > > want
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the essential public APIs
> > > that
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > single-entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:50
> PM
> > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the big changes
> > proposed
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first approach". To
> > add
> > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > clarity,
> > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this change:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a look and let
> me
> > > > know
> > > > > if
> > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions, or objections.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>]

Pavel,

I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't be treated correctly for now
(WHERE x > y may return wrong results)

I think we could make "true" support for unsigned types, but they will have
limitations on the Java side.
Thus, the one will not be able to map uint64 to Java long primitive, but to
BigInteger only.
As for indices, we could read uint64 to Java long, but treat negative
values in a different way to preserve correct ordering.

These limitations will affect only mixed environments when .Net and Java
used to access the data.
Will this solution address your issues?


On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org> wrote:

> > That way is impossible.
>
> That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with .NET and C++ :)
> You can use unsigned primitives as cache keys and values, as fields and
> properties,
> and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y clauses) - it works transparently for
> the users.
> Java side knows nothing and treats those values as corresponding signed
> types.
>
> However, this abstraction leaks in some cases only because there are no
> corresponding type ids.
> That is why I'm proposing a very simple change to the protocol - add type
> ids, but handle them the same way as signed counterparts.
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Pavel,
> >
> > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise representation is the same)
> >
> > That way is impossible.
> >
> > Assume, you have a .NET class with a uByte field and map it to 'uint8'
> > column.
> > Then you set the field value to "250" and put the object into a table,
> > field value perfectly fits to a single byte 'int8' column.
> > But in Java you can't deserialize it to directly the Java object field of
> > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8 type to Java 'short' type
> > because the one expected to see "250" as a value which doesn't fit to the
> > signed type.
> > For uLong the one will need a BigInteger field in Java.
> >
> > SQL index either can't treat column value as Java 'byte' as is, because
> > after reading you will get a negative value, so it should be cast to
> short
> > at first. (converted to BigInteger for uint64)
> > So, index on signed type will require a different comparator.
> >
> > That way doesn't look simpler.
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Andrey,
> > >
> > > I don't think range narrowing is a good idea.
> > > Do you see any problems with the simple approach I described?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Pavel,
> > > >
> > > > If you are ok with narrowing range for unsigned types then we could
> > add a
> > > > constraint for unsigned types on schema level (like nullability flag)
> > > > and treat them as signed types in storage.
> > > >
> > > > We are going with a separate storage type-system and binary protocol
> > > > type-system, however most of type will match 1 to 1 with storage
> > (native)
> > > > type.
> > > > On .Net side you will either have a separate type id or treat
> > serialized
> > > > value regarding a schema (signed or unsigned flag).
> > > >
> > > > Igor,
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure users can ever foresee the consequences of using
> unsigned
> > > > types.
> > > >
> > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned types perfectly works with some
> > database,
> > > > then he turns into Ignite successor confession with our "native"
> > > > unsigned-types support.
> > > > But later, he finds that he can use the power of Ignite Compute on
> Java
> > > for
> > > > some tasks or a new app.
> > > > Finally, the user will either fail to use his unsigned data on Java
> due
> > > or
> > > > face performance issues due to natural Java type system limitations
> > e.g.
> > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
> > > >
> > > > I believe that natively supported types with possible value ranges
> and
> > > > limitations should be known.
> > > > So, the only question is what trade-off we found acceptable:
> narrowing
> > > > unsigned type range or use types of wider range on systems like Java.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor Sapego <is...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Actually, I think it is not so hard to implement comparison of
> > unsigned
> > > > > numbers in
> > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not seem to be a big issue from my
> > > > > perspective.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned types from Java - I think, if a user
> > uses
> > > > > unsigned type
> > > > > in a schema and is going to interact with it from Java he knows
> what
> > he
> > > > is
> > > > > doing.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mostly they are for use from platforms where they have native
> support
> > > and
> > > > > widely
> > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where users currently have to make a
> > manual
> > > > type
> > > > > casting
> > > > > or even just stop using unsigned types when they use Ignite.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > Igor
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
> > > > > > - Add protocol support for those types (basically, just add more
> > type
> > > > > ids)
> > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise representation is the
> same)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned integers, so we can simply say
> that
> > > > > > unsigned value relative comparison is not supported in SQL
> > (equality
> > > > will
> > > > > > work).
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I like your ideas to have i8 or int8 instead of Integer.
> > > > > > > But the naming doesn't address the issue.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I agree internal types should be portable across different
> > systems
> > > > with
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > without unsigned type support.
> > > > > > > The only issue here is that unsigned types cover different
> > ranges.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Let's assume we want to introduce a uLong.
> > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big deal to add uLong type support at
> > > storage
> > > > > > level
> > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and then use it in e.g. .Net only.
> > > > > > > But how we could support it in e.g. Java?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range is about (2^-63 .. 2^63) and
> uLong
> > > > range
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > > > > > > 1. The first option is to restrict range to (0 .. 2^63). This
> > > allows
> > > > to
> > > > > > use
> > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but doesn't look like a 'real'
> unsigned
> > > > uLong
> > > > > > > support. Things go worse when the user will use uByte, as
> > > limitation
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map unsigned types to a type of wider
> > type
> > > > and
> > > > > > add
> > > > > > > a constraint for negative values. E.g. uLong to BigInteger.
> > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive Java type for Long here. However, it
> > is
> > > > > still
> > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8 bytes, but have a special
> comparator
> > > for
> > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid unwanted deserialization.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of "long, short, byte" in the protocol
> > > > > definition.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We can use Rust style, which is concise and unambiguous:
> > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM Igor Sapego <
> > isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I totally support that. Also, if we are aiming for
> > > > > > > > > stronger platform-independance,
> > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may want to support bit-notation (int32,
> > > > uint64)?
> > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > > example
> > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a different type on different platforms and
> > > it's
> > > > > easy
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > confuse
> > > > > > > > > them (happens often when using ODBC for example).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I think we should support unsigned data types:
> > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Java does not have them, but many other languages do,
> > > > > > > > > > and with the growing number of thin clients this is
> > > important.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > For example, in current Ignite.NET implementation we
> store
> > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > values
> > > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
> > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain when it comes to metadata, binary
> > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to deserialize int as uint when you have a
> > class,
> > > > but
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both serializers use reflection API.
> > > > > > > > > > > However, we will allow users to configure static schema
> > > along
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still need to validate user classes on
> > > client
> > > > > > nodes
> > > > > > > > > > against
> > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in the grid  and reflection API is
> the
> > > only
> > > > > way
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few articles on the internet on how to
> > > enable
> > > > > > > > reflection
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task for supporting GraalVM, and maybe
> > > someone
> > > > > who
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM will suggest a solution or a
> proper
> > > > > > > workaround.
> > > > > > > > > Or
> > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
> > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is found, we could allow users to
> write
> > > it's
> > > > > own
> > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I don't think it is a good idea to
> expose
> > > any
> > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > classes to the public.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM Denis Magda <
> > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the update,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the serializers take into consideration
> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > native-image-generation feature of GraalVM?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > With the current binary marshaller, we can't even
> > > generate
> > > > a
> > > > > > > native
> > > > > > > > > > image
> > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using our thin client APIs.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to continue discussion of IEP-54
> > (Schema-first
> > > > > > > > approach).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who is interested had a chance to get
> > > > > familiar
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to ask questions and share
> > your
> > > > > > ideas.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a prototype of serializer [2] for the
> > > data
> > > > > > layout
> > > > > > > > > > > described
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I compared 2 approaches to
> (de)serialize
> > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java reflection/unsafe API and similar to one
> we
> > > > > already
> > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second one generates serializer for
> > particular
> > > > user
> > > > > > > class
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library for compilation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows better results in benchmarks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go with it as default serializer and
> > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation as a fallback if someone will have
> > > issues
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of tasks under the umbrella
> ticket
> > > [3]
> > > > > > > waiting
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to create more tickets for schema
> > > manager
> > > > > > modes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation, but would like to clarify some
> > details.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought schemaManager on each node should held:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping of "schema version" <-->
> validated
> > > > local
> > > > > > > > > key/value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide schema changes history.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client side. Before any key-value API
> > operation
> > > we
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a given key-value pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no local-mapping exists for a given
> > > key-value
> > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema has a more recent version then
> > the
> > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > > > > should be validated against the latest version and
> > > local
> > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object doesn't fit to the latest schema then
> it
> > > > > depends
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail the operation ('strict' mode) or
> a
> > > new
> > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a new schema version should be
> propagated
> > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server side we usually have no key-value
> > classes
> > > > and
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > operate
> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change history is available and a tuple
> has
> > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > version,
> > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to upgrade any received tuple to the
> > > last
> > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow nodes to send key-value pairs
> of
> > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > versions
> > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't receive a schema update yet) without
> > > > reverting
> > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node with newer classes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the same?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Ivan Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not ignore history. We had a thread [1]
> > > with
> > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > bright
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can resume it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <
> > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks for explaining.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we need to have a separate
> discussion
> > > > thread
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms substitution. I'll appreciate it
> if
> > > you
> > > > > > start
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing pointers to any relevant IEPs and
> > reasoning
> > > > > > behind
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM Valentin
> > Kulichenko
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the wording in the IEP is a little bit
> > > > > > confusing.
> > > > > > > > All
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you should not create nested POJOs, but
> > > rather
> > > > > > inline
> > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO that is mapped to a particular
> > schema.
> > > > In
> > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > words,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this correct? Please let me know if
> I'm
> > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > something.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the "cache" term, I agree that it is
> > > > outdated,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can replace it with. "Table" is
> tightly
> > > > > > associated
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional in our case. Do you want to
> > > create a
> > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM Denis Magda <
> > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked the IEP again and have a few
> > > > questions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects and collections are
> > not
> > > > > > allowed
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > column
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should either be inlined into
> > > > schema,
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > stored
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL code snippet showing
> > how
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > inlining
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to work?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep using the terms "cache" and
> > "table"
> > > > > > > > throughout
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right time to discuss an alternate name
> > that
> > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the "table" should stay and the
> > > "cache"
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one of the primary APIs in Ignite
> > and
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > DDL
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM Valentin
> > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your point. I agree that with the
> > > automatic
> > > > > > > updates
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last territory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we support automatic
> evolution,
> > we
> > > > can
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a cache without schema and
> inferring
> > > it
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other words, we can have both
> "schema-first"
> > > and
> > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59 AM Alexey
> > > Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got your concern now. As it
> is
> > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > regarding
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > terminology, I am absolutely fine with
> > > changing
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the approach best. Dynamic or evolving
> > schema
> > > > > > sounds
> > > > > > > > > > great. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > corresponding changes to the IEP once we
> > > settle
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > name.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в 11:33, Ivan
> > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for your answer!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My understanding is a little bit
> > different.
> > > > > Yes,
> > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > definitely should be possible. But I
> see
> > a
> > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > difference
> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is updated". I treat a common
> SQL
> > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data manipulation operations are
> > > clearly
> > > > > > > > separated
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > interesting capabilities, e.g.
> preventing
> > > > > > untended
> > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data operations, restricting
> > user
> > > > > > > > permissions
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first means that schema exists
> > in
> > > > > > advance
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is compliant with it - that's exactly
> > what
> > > is
> > > > > > > > proposed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last approach mentioned in [1]
> > > also
> > > > > > > assumes
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is inferred from data.
> Is
> > > not
> > > > it
> > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing approach?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would like to say, that my main
> > > concern
> > > > > so
> > > > > > > far
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > terminology. And I suppose if it
> confuses
> > > me
> > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused as well. My feeling is closer
> to
> > > > > > "dynamic
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47 GMT+03:00, Valentin
> > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an issue with that.
> > > > Schema-first
> > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance and all the stored data is
> > > > compliant
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is proposed. There are no
> restrictions
> > > > > > > prohibiting
> > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:52 PM Ivan
> > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit confused with
> > > > terminology.
> > > > > > My
> > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see part X Semi
> > > > Structured
> > > > > > > Data).
> > > > > > > > > Can
> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema" approach as a
> kind
> > of
> > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53 GMT+03:00, Denis
> > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please
> elaborate
> > > on
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate
> > > > running
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is
> missing
> > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all
> you
> > > need
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes, if all the ORM
> > > > > integrations
> > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > internally, then they can easily
> > > > translate
> > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > Entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE statement that lists
> > all
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > object's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data integration is already
> > > based
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be improved once the
> schema-first
> > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of usability issues.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would revise the Hibernate
> > > integration
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say if it's used a
> lot
> > > but
> > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind, I'll loop you in
> > as
> > > > long
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > you've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support for Micornaut Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came across some challenges. Just
> > > watch
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite 3.0.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 5:11 PM
> > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally speaking, I believe
> that
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the issue if duplicate
> > > fields
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be created for a
> cache,
> > > not
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > object,
> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the schema will define
> > > > whether
> > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which fields are included in
> > case
> > > > > there
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be compliant with this,
> > so
> > > it
> > > > > > > becomes
> > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a set of records,
> > rather
> > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please
> elaborate
> > > on
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate
> > > > running
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is
> missing
> > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all
> you
> > > need
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:08 PM
> > Denis
> > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would propose adding another
> > > point
> > > > to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to the ORM frameworks
> > such
> > > as
> > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > Data,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the storage engine
> > > > requires
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones that complicate the
> > > usage
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially if a key object
> > > comprises
> > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice if the new
> > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single entity object when it
> > comes
> > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > ORMs.
> > > > > > > > > > > With
> > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a key and value.
> Just
> > > > want
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the essential public APIs
> > that
> > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > single-entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:50 PM
> > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the big changes
> proposed
> > > for
> > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first approach". To
> add
> > > > more
> > > > > > > > clarity,
> > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this change:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a look and let me
> > > know
> > > > if
> > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions, or objections.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >
>


-- 
Best regards,
Andrey V. Mashenkov

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>]

> That way is impossible.

That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with .NET and C++ :)
You can use unsigned primitives as cache keys and values, as fields and
properties,
and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y clauses) - it works transparently for
the users.
Java side knows nothing and treats those values as corresponding signed
types.

However, this abstraction leaks in some cases only because there are no
corresponding type ids.
That is why I'm proposing a very simple change to the protocol - add type
ids, but handle them the same way as signed counterparts.


On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Pavel,
>
> - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise representation is the same)
>
> That way is impossible.
>
> Assume, you have a .NET class with a uByte field and map it to 'uint8'
> column.
> Then you set the field value to "250" and put the object into a table,
> field value perfectly fits to a single byte 'int8' column.
> But in Java you can't deserialize it to directly the Java object field of
> 'byte' type, so we should map uint8 type to Java 'short' type
> because the one expected to see "250" as a value which doesn't fit to the
> signed type.
> For uLong the one will need a BigInteger field in Java.
>
> SQL index either can't treat column value as Java 'byte' as is, because
> after reading you will get a negative value, so it should be cast to short
> at first. (converted to BigInteger for uint64)
> So, index on signed type will require a different comparator.
>
> That way doesn't look simpler.
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Andrey,
> >
> > I don't think range narrowing is a good idea.
> > Do you see any problems with the simple approach I described?
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Pavel,
> > >
> > > If you are ok with narrowing range for unsigned types then we could
> add a
> > > constraint for unsigned types on schema level (like nullability flag)
> > > and treat them as signed types in storage.
> > >
> > > We are going with a separate storage type-system and binary protocol
> > > type-system, however most of type will match 1 to 1 with storage
> (native)
> > > type.
> > > On .Net side you will either have a separate type id or treat
> serialized
> > > value regarding a schema (signed or unsigned flag).
> > >
> > > Igor,
> > >
> > > I'm not sure users can ever foresee the consequences of using unsigned
> > > types.
> > >
> > > Assume, a user used to unsigned types perfectly works with some
> database,
> > > then he turns into Ignite successor confession with our "native"
> > > unsigned-types support.
> > > But later, he finds that he can use the power of Ignite Compute on Java
> > for
> > > some tasks or a new app.
> > > Finally, the user will either fail to use his unsigned data on Java due
> > or
> > > face performance issues due to natural Java type system limitations
> e.g.
> > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
> > >
> > > I believe that natively supported types with possible value ranges and
> > > limitations should be known.
> > > So, the only question is what trade-off we found acceptable: narrowing
> > > unsigned type range or use types of wider range on systems like Java.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor Sapego <is...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Actually, I think it is not so hard to implement comparison of
> unsigned
> > > > numbers in
> > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not seem to be a big issue from my
> > > > perspective.
> > > >
> > > > Now to the usage of unsigned types from Java - I think, if a user
> uses
> > > > unsigned type
> > > > in a schema and is going to interact with it from Java he knows what
> he
> > > is
> > > > doing.
> > > >
> > > > Mostly they are for use from platforms where they have native support
> > and
> > > > widely
> > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where users currently have to make a
> manual
> > > type
> > > > casting
> > > > or even just stop using unsigned types when they use Ignite.
> > > >
> > > > Best Regards,
> > > > Igor
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupitsyn@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Andrey,
> > > > >
> > > > > I think it is much simpler:
> > > > > - Add protocol support for those types (basically, just add more
> type
> > > > ids)
> > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise representation is the same)
> > > > >
> > > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned integers, so we can simply say that
> > > > > unsigned value relative comparison is not supported in SQL
> (equality
> > > will
> > > > > work).
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I like your ideas to have i8 or int8 instead of Integer.
> > > > > > But the naming doesn't address the issue.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I agree internal types should be portable across different
> systems
> > > with
> > > > > and
> > > > > > without unsigned type support.
> > > > > > The only issue here is that unsigned types cover different
> ranges.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let's assume we want to introduce a uLong.
> > > > > > It doesn't look like a big deal to add uLong type support at
> > storage
> > > > > level
> > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and then use it in e.g. .Net only.
> > > > > > But how we could support it in e.g. Java?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range is about (2^-63 .. 2^63) and uLong
> > > range
> > > > is
> > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > > > > > 1. The first option is to restrict range to (0 .. 2^63). This
> > allows
> > > to
> > > > > use
> > > > > > signed in e.g.
> > > > > > Java with no conversion, but doesn't look like a 'real' unsigned
> > > uLong
> > > > > > support. Things go worse when the user will use uByte, as
> > limitation
> > > > can
> > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. The second one is to map unsigned types to a type of wider
> type
> > > and
> > > > > add
> > > > > > a constraint for negative values. E.g. uLong to BigInteger.
> > > > > > So, we can't use primitive Java type for Long here. However, it
> is
> > > > still
> > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8 bytes, but have a special comparator
> > for
> > > > > > unsigned types to avoid unwanted deserialization.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of "long, short, byte" in the protocol
> > > > definition.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We can use Rust style, which is concise and unambiguous:
> > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM Igor Sapego <
> isapego@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I totally support that. Also, if we are aiming for
> > > > > > > > stronger platform-independance,
> > > > > > > > in our schemas we may want to support bit-notation (int32,
> > > uint64)?
> > > > > For
> > > > > > > > example
> > > > > > > > "long" can mean a different type on different platforms and
> > it's
> > > > easy
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > confuse
> > > > > > > > them (happens often when using ODBC for example).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think we should support unsigned data types:
> > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Java does not have them, but many other languages do,
> > > > > > > > > and with the growing number of thin clients this is
> > important.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > For example, in current Ignite.NET implementation we store
> > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > values
> > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
> > > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain when it comes to metadata, binary
> > > > objects,
> > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > (it is easy to deserialize int as uint when you have a
> class,
> > > but
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both serializers use reflection API.
> > > > > > > > > > However, we will allow users to configure static schema
> > along
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still need to validate user classes on
> > client
> > > > > nodes
> > > > > > > > > against
> > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in the grid  and reflection API is the
> > only
> > > > way
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > One can find a few articles on the internet on how to
> > enable
> > > > > > > reflection
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task for supporting GraalVM, and maybe
> > someone
> > > > who
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM will suggest a solution or a proper
> > > > > > workaround.
> > > > > > > > Or
> > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
> > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is found, we could allow users to write
> > it's
> > > > own
> > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I don't think it is a good idea to expose
> > any
> > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > classes to the public.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM Denis Magda <
> > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the update,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the serializers take into consideration the
> > > > > > > > > > > native-image-generation feature of GraalVM?
> > > > > > > > > > > https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > With the current binary marshaller, we can't even
> > generate
> > > a
> > > > > > native
> > > > > > > > > image
> > > > > > > > > > > for the code using our thin client APIs.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to continue discussion of IEP-54
> (Schema-first
> > > > > > > approach).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who is interested had a chance to get
> > > > familiar
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to ask questions and share
> your
> > > > > ideas.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a prototype of serializer [2] for the
> > data
> > > > > layout
> > > > > > > > > > described
> > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I compared 2 approaches to (de)serialize
> > > > objects,
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > uses java reflection/unsafe API and similar to one we
> > > > already
> > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > and the second one generates serializer for
> particular
> > > user
> > > > > > class
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library for compilation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows better results in benchmarks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go with it as default serializer and
> > have
> > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
> > > > > > > > > > > > implementation as a fallback if someone will have
> > issues
> > > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of tasks under the umbrella ticket
> > [3]
> > > > > > waiting
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to create more tickets for schema
> > manager
> > > > > modes
> > > > > > > > > > > > implementation, but would like to clarify some
> details.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I thought schemaManager on each node should held:
> > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping of "schema version" <--> validated
> > > local
> > > > > > > > key/value
> > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide schema changes history.
> > > > > > > > > > > > On the client side. Before any key-value API
> operation
> > we
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a given key-value pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no local-mapping exists for a given
> > key-value
> > > > > pair
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema has a more recent version then
> the
> > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > > > should be validated against the latest version and
> > local
> > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
> > > > > > > > > > > > If an object doesn't fit to the latest schema then it
> > > > depends
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail the operation ('strict' mode) or a
> > new
> > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > created and a new schema version should be propagated
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On the server side we usually have no key-value
> classes
> > > and
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > operate
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change history is available and a tuple has
> > > > schema
> > > > > > > > version,
> > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to upgrade any received tuple to the
> > last
> > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow nodes to send key-value pairs of
> > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > versions
> > > > > > > > > > > (if
> > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't receive a schema update yet) without
> > > reverting
> > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node with newer classes.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the same?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Ivan Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not ignore history. We had a thread [1]
> > with
> > > > many
> > > > > > > > bright
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can resume it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <
> > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks for explaining.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we need to have a separate discussion
> > > thread
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms substitution. I'll appreciate it if
> > you
> > > > > start
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing pointers to any relevant IEPs and
> reasoning
> > > > > behind
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM Valentin
> Kulichenko
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the wording in the IEP is a little bit
> > > > > confusing.
> > > > > > > All
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you should not create nested POJOs, but
> > rather
> > > > > inline
> > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO that is mapped to a particular
> schema.
> > > In
> > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > words,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this correct? Please let me know if I'm
> > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > something.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the "cache" term, I agree that it is
> > > outdated,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can replace it with. "Table" is tightly
> > > > > associated
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional in our case. Do you want to
> > create a
> > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM Denis Magda <
> > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked the IEP again and have a few
> > > questions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects and collections are
> not
> > > > > allowed
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > column
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should either be inlined into
> > > schema,
> > > > or
> > > > > > > > stored
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL code snippet showing
> how
> > > the
> > > > > > > inlining
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to work?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep using the terms "cache" and
> "table"
> > > > > > > throughout
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right time to discuss an alternate name
> that
> > > > would
> > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the "table" should stay and the
> > "cache"
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one of the primary APIs in Ignite
> and
> > > > that
> > > > > > DDL
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM Valentin
> > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your point. I agree that with the
> > automatic
> > > > > > updates
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last territory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we support automatic evolution,
> we
> > > can
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a cache without schema and inferring
> > it
> > > > from
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other words, we can have both "schema-first"
> > and
> > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59 AM Alexey
> > Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got your concern now. As it is
> > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > regarding
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > terminology, I am absolutely fine with
> > changing
> > > > the
> > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the approach best. Dynamic or evolving
> schema
> > > > > sounds
> > > > > > > > > great. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > corresponding changes to the IEP once we
> > settle
> > > > on
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > name.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в 11:33, Ivan
> Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for your answer!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My understanding is a little bit
> different.
> > > > Yes,
> > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > definitely should be possible. But I see
> a
> > > main
> > > > > > > > > difference
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is updated". I treat a common SQL
> > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data manipulation operations are
> > clearly
> > > > > > > separated
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > interesting capabilities, e.g. preventing
> > > > > untended
> > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data operations, restricting
> user
> > > > > > > permissions
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first means that schema exists
> in
> > > > > advance
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is compliant with it - that's exactly
> what
> > is
> > > > > > > proposed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last approach mentioned in [1]
> > also
> > > > > > assumes
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is inferred from data. Is
> > not
> > > it
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing approach?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would like to say, that my main
> > concern
> > > > so
> > > > > > far
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > terminology. And I suppose if it confuses
> > me
> > > > then
> > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused as well. My feeling is closer to
> > > > > "dynamic
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > liquid
> > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47 GMT+03:00, Valentin
> > > Kulichenko
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an issue with that.
> > > Schema-first
> > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance and all the stored data is
> > > compliant
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is proposed. There are no restrictions
> > > > > > prohibiting
> > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:52 PM Ivan
> > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit confused with
> > > terminology.
> > > > > My
> > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see part X Semi
> > > Structured
> > > > > > Data).
> > > > > > > > Can
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema" approach as a kind
> of
> > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53 GMT+03:00, Denis
> Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate
> > > running
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing
> > > > exactly
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you
> > need
> > > > is
> > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes, if all the ORM
> > > > integrations
> > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > internally, then they can easily
> > > translate
> > > > > an
> > > > > > > > Entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE statement that lists
> all
> > > the
> > > > > > > > object's
> > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data integration is already
> > based
> > > > on
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be improved once the schema-first
> > > > > approach
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of usability issues.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would revise the Hibernate
> > integration
> > > > as
> > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say if it's used a lot
> > but
> > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind, I'll loop you in
> as
> > > long
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > > you've
> > > > > > > > > > > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support for Micornaut Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came across some challenges. Just
> > watch
> > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite 3.0.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 5:11 PM
> > Valentin
> > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally speaking, I believe that
> > the
> > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the issue if duplicate
> > fields
> > > > in
> > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be created for a cache,
> > not
> > > > for
> > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > object,
> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the schema will define
> > > whether
> > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which fields are included in
> case
> > > > there
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be compliant with this,
> so
> > it
> > > > > > becomes
> > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a set of records,
> rather
> > > > than
> > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate
> > > running
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing
> > > > exactly
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you
> > need
> > > > is
> > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:08 PM
> Denis
> > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would propose adding another
> > point
> > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to the ORM frameworks
> such
> > as
> > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > Data,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the storage engine
> > > requires
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones that complicate the
> > usage
> > > of
> > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially if a key object
> > comprises
> > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice if the new
> > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single entity object when it
> comes
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > > ORMs.
> > > > > > > > > > With
> > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a key and value. Just
> > > want
> > > > to
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the essential public APIs
> that
> > > > would
> > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > single-entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:50 PM
> > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the big changes proposed
> > for
> > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first approach". To add
> > > more
> > > > > > > clarity,
> > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this change:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a look and let me
> > know
> > > if
> > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions, or objections.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>]

Pavel,

- Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise representation is the same)

That way is impossible.

Assume, you have a .NET class with a uByte field and map it to 'uint8'
column.
Then you set the field value to "250" and put the object into a table,
field value perfectly fits to a single byte 'int8' column.
But in Java you can't deserialize it to directly the Java object field of
'byte' type, so we should map uint8 type to Java 'short' type
because the one expected to see "250" as a value which doesn't fit to the
signed type.
For uLong the one will need a BigInteger field in Java.

SQL index either can't treat column value as Java 'byte' as is, because
after reading you will get a negative value, so it should be cast to short
at first. (converted to BigInteger for uint64)
So, index on signed type will require a different comparator.

That way doesn't look simpler.

On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org> wrote:

> Andrey,
>
> I don't think range narrowing is a good idea.
> Do you see any problems with the simple approach I described?
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Pavel,
> >
> > If you are ok with narrowing range for unsigned types then we could add a
> > constraint for unsigned types on schema level (like nullability flag)
> > and treat them as signed types in storage.
> >
> > We are going with a separate storage type-system and binary protocol
> > type-system, however most of type will match 1 to 1 with storage (native)
> > type.
> > On .Net side you will either have a separate type id or treat serialized
> > value regarding a schema (signed or unsigned flag).
> >
> > Igor,
> >
> > I'm not sure users can ever foresee the consequences of using unsigned
> > types.
> >
> > Assume, a user used to unsigned types perfectly works with some database,
> > then he turns into Ignite successor confession with our "native"
> > unsigned-types support.
> > But later, he finds that he can use the power of Ignite Compute on Java
> for
> > some tasks or a new app.
> > Finally, the user will either fail to use his unsigned data on Java due
> or
> > face performance issues due to natural Java type system limitations e.g.
> > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
> >
> > I believe that natively supported types with possible value ranges and
> > limitations should be known.
> > So, the only question is what trade-off we found acceptable: narrowing
> > unsigned type range or use types of wider range on systems like Java.
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor Sapego <is...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Actually, I think it is not so hard to implement comparison of unsigned
> > > numbers in
> > > SQL even in Java, so it does not seem to be a big issue from my
> > > perspective.
> > >
> > > Now to the usage of unsigned types from Java - I think, if a user uses
> > > unsigned type
> > > in a schema and is going to interact with it from Java he knows what he
> > is
> > > doing.
> > >
> > > Mostly they are for use from platforms where they have native support
> and
> > > widely
> > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where users currently have to make a manual
> > type
> > > casting
> > > or even just stop using unsigned types when they use Ignite.
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Igor
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Andrey,
> > > >
> > > > I think it is much simpler:
> > > > - Add protocol support for those types (basically, just add more type
> > > ids)
> > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise representation is the same)
> > > >
> > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned integers, so we can simply say that
> > > > unsigned value relative comparison is not supported in SQL (equality
> > will
> > > > work).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> > > > >
> > > > > I like your ideas to have i8 or int8 instead of Integer.
> > > > > But the naming doesn't address the issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree internal types should be portable across different systems
> > with
> > > > and
> > > > > without unsigned type support.
> > > > > The only issue here is that unsigned types cover different ranges.
> > > > >
> > > > > Let's assume we want to introduce a uLong.
> > > > > It doesn't look like a big deal to add uLong type support at
> storage
> > > > level
> > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and then use it in e.g. .Net only.
> > > > > But how we could support it in e.g. Java?
> > > > >
> > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range is about (2^-63 .. 2^63) and uLong
> > range
> > > is
> > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > > > > 1. The first option is to restrict range to (0 .. 2^63). This
> allows
> > to
> > > > use
> > > > > signed in e.g.
> > > > > Java with no conversion, but doesn't look like a 'real' unsigned
> > uLong
> > > > > support. Things go worse when the user will use uByte, as
> limitation
> > > can
> > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. The second one is to map unsigned types to a type of wider type
> > and
> > > > add
> > > > > a constraint for negative values. E.g. uLong to BigInteger.
> > > > > So, we can't use primitive Java type for Long here. However, it is
> > > still
> > > > > possible to store uLong in 8 bytes, but have a special comparator
> for
> > > > > unsigned types to avoid unwanted deserialization.
> > > > >
> > > > > WDYT?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of "long, short, byte" in the protocol
> > > definition.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We can use Rust style, which is concise and unambiguous:
> > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM Igor Sapego <is...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I totally support that. Also, if we are aiming for
> > > > > > > stronger platform-independance,
> > > > > > > in our schemas we may want to support bit-notation (int32,
> > uint64)?
> > > > For
> > > > > > > example
> > > > > > > "long" can mean a different type on different platforms and
> it's
> > > easy
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > confuse
> > > > > > > them (happens often when using ODBC for example).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think we should support unsigned data types:
> > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Java does not have them, but many other languages do,
> > > > > > > > and with the growing number of thin clients this is
> important.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For example, in current Ignite.NET implementation we store
> > > unsigned
> > > > > > > values
> > > > > > > > as signed internally,
> > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain when it comes to metadata, binary
> > > objects,
> > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > (it is easy to deserialize int as uint when you have a class,
> > but
> > > > not
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Any objections?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Good point. Both serializers use reflection API.
> > > > > > > > > However, we will allow users to configure static schema
> along
> > > > with
> > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still need to validate user classes on
> client
> > > > nodes
> > > > > > > > against
> > > > > > > > > the latest schema in the grid  and reflection API is the
> only
> > > way
> > > > > to
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > One can find a few articles on the internet on how to
> enable
> > > > > > reflection
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'll create a task for supporting GraalVM, and maybe
> someone
> > > who
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM will suggest a solution or a proper
> > > > > workaround.
> > > > > > > Or
> > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
> > > > > > > > > If no workaround is found, we could allow users to write
> it's
> > > own
> > > > > > > > > serializer, but I don't think it is a good idea to expose
> any
> > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > classes to the public.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM Denis Magda <
> > dmagda@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the update,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Does any of the serializers take into consideration the
> > > > > > > > > > native-image-generation feature of GraalVM?
> > > > > > > > > > https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > With the current binary marshaller, we can't even
> generate
> > a
> > > > > native
> > > > > > > > image
> > > > > > > > > > for the code using our thin client APIs.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to continue discussion of IEP-54 (Schema-first
> > > > > > approach).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who is interested had a chance to get
> > > familiar
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to ask questions and share your
> > > > ideas.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a prototype of serializer [2] for the
> data
> > > > layout
> > > > > > > > > described
> > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
> > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I compared 2 approaches to (de)serialize
> > > objects,
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > uses java reflection/unsafe API and similar to one we
> > > already
> > > > > use
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > and the second one generates serializer for particular
> > user
> > > > > class
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > Janino library for compilation.
> > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows better results in benchmarks.
> > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go with it as default serializer and
> have
> > > > > > > > > reflection-based
> > > > > > > > > > > implementation as a fallback if someone will have
> issues
> > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of tasks under the umbrella ticket
> [3]
> > > > > waiting
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to create more tickets for schema
> manager
> > > > modes
> > > > > > > > > > > implementation, but would like to clarify some details.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I thought schemaManager on each node should held:
> > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping of "schema version" <--> validated
> > local
> > > > > > > key/value
> > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
> > > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide schema changes history.
> > > > > > > > > > > On the client side. Before any key-value API operation
> we
> > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > validate a
> > > > > > > > > > > schema for a given key-value pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > If there is no local-mapping exists for a given
> key-value
> > > > pair
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema has a more recent version then the
> > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > > should be validated against the latest version and
> local
> > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
> > > > > > > > > > > If an object doesn't fit to the latest schema then it
> > > depends
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail the operation ('strict' mode) or a
> new
> > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > created and a new schema version should be propagated
> to
> > > the
> > > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On the server side we usually have no key-value classes
> > and
> > > > we
> > > > > > > > operate
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> > > > > > > > > > > As schema change history is available and a tuple has
> > > schema
> > > > > > > version,
> > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to upgrade any received tuple to the
> last
> > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
> > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow nodes to send key-value pairs of
> > > previous
> > > > > > > > versions
> > > > > > > > > > (if
> > > > > > > > > > > they didn't receive a schema update yet) without
> > reverting
> > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > made by a node with newer classes.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the same?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > > > > > > > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Ivan Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not ignore history. We had a thread [1]
> with
> > > many
> > > > > > > bright
> > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can resume it.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <
> > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks for explaining.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we need to have a separate discussion
> > thread
> > > > for
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms substitution. I'll appreciate it if
> you
> > > > start
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing pointers to any relevant IEPs and reasoning
> > > > behind
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM Valentin Kulichenko
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the wording in the IEP is a little bit
> > > > confusing.
> > > > > > All
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you should not create nested POJOs, but
> rather
> > > > inline
> > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > into a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO that is mapped to a particular schema.
> > In
> > > > > other
> > > > > > > > words,
> > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this correct? Please let me know if I'm
> > > missing
> > > > > > > > > something.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the "cache" term, I agree that it is
> > outdated,
> > > > but
> > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can replace it with. "Table" is tightly
> > > > associated
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional in our case. Do you want to
> create a
> > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM Denis Magda <
> > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked the IEP again and have a few
> > questions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects and collections are not
> > > > allowed
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > column
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should either be inlined into
> > schema,
> > > or
> > > > > > > stored
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL code snippet showing how
> > the
> > > > > > inlining
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to work?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep using the terms "cache" and "table"
> > > > > > throughout
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right time to discuss an alternate name that
> > > would
> > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the "table" should stay and the
> "cache"
> > > > > should
> > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one of the primary APIs in Ignite and
> > > that
> > > > > DDL
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > supported
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM Valentin
> > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your point. I agree that with the
> automatic
> > > > > updates
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last territory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we support automatic evolution, we
> > can
> > > > as
> > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a cache without schema and inferring
> it
> > > from
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other words, we can have both "schema-first"
> and
> > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59 AM Alexey
> Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got your concern now. As it is
> > > mostly
> > > > > > > > regarding
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > terminology, I am absolutely fine with
> changing
> > > the
> > > > > > name
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the approach best. Dynamic or evolving schema
> > > > sounds
> > > > > > > > great. I
> > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > corresponding changes to the IEP once we
> settle
> > > on
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > name.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в 11:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for your answer!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My understanding is a little bit different.
> > > Yes,
> > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > definitely should be possible. But I see a
> > main
> > > > > > > > difference
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is updated". I treat a common SQL
> > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data manipulation operations are
> clearly
> > > > > > separated
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > interesting capabilities, e.g. preventing
> > > > untended
> > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data operations, restricting user
> > > > > > permissions
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first means that schema exists in
> > > > advance
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is compliant with it - that's exactly what
> is
> > > > > > proposed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last approach mentioned in [1]
> also
> > > > > assumes
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is inferred from data. Is
> not
> > it
> > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing approach?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would like to say, that my main
> concern
> > > so
> > > > > far
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > terminology. And I suppose if it confuses
> me
> > > then
> > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused as well. My feeling is closer to
> > > > "dynamic
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > liquid
> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47 GMT+03:00, Valentin
> > Kulichenko
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an issue with that.
> > Schema-first
> > > > > means
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance and all the stored data is
> > compliant
> > > > with
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is proposed. There are no restrictions
> > > > > prohibiting
> > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:52 PM Ivan
> > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit confused with
> > terminology.
> > > > My
> > > > > > > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see part X Semi
> > Structured
> > > > > Data).
> > > > > > > Can
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema" approach as a kind of
> > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <
> > > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate
> on
> > > the
> > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate
> > running
> > > > on
> > > > > > top
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing
> > > exactly
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you
> need
> > > is
> > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes, if all the ORM
> > > integrations
> > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > internally, then they can easily
> > translate
> > > > an
> > > > > > > Entity
> > > > > > > > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE statement that lists all
> > the
> > > > > > > object's
> > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data integration is already
> based
> > > on
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be improved once the schema-first
> > > > approach
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of usability issues.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would revise the Hibernate
> integration
> > > as
> > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say if it's used a lot
> but
> > > > Spring
> > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind, I'll loop you in as
> > long
> > > > as
> > > > > > > you've
> > > > > > > > > > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support for Micornaut Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came across some challenges. Just
> watch
> > > this
> > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite 3.0.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 5:11 PM
> Valentin
> > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally speaking, I believe that
> the
> > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the issue if duplicate
> fields
> > > in
> > > > > key
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> because
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be created for a cache,
> not
> > > for
> > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > object,
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the schema will define
> > whether
> > > > > there
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which fields are included in case
> > > there
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be compliant with this, so
> it
> > > > > becomes
> > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a set of records, rather
> > > than
> > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate
> on
> > > the
> > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate
> > running
> > > > on
> > > > > > top
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing
> > > exactly
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you
> need
> > > is
> > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:08 PM Denis
> > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would propose adding another
> point
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > motivations
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to the ORM frameworks such
> as
> > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > Data,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the storage engine
> > requires
> > > to
> > > > > > > > > distinguish
> > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones that complicate the
> usage
> > of
> > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially if a key object
> comprises
> > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > fields).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice if the new
> > schema-first
> > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single entity object when it comes
> to
> > > the
> > > > > > ORMs.
> > > > > > > > > With
> > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a key and value. Just
> > want
> > > to
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the essential public APIs that
> > > would
> > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > single-entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:50 PM
> > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the big changes proposed
> for
> > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first approach". To add
> > more
> > > > > > clarity,
> > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this change:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a look and let me
> know
> > if
> > > > > there
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions, or objections.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >
>


-- 
Best regards,
Andrey V. Mashenkov

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>]

Andrey,

I don't think range narrowing is a good idea.
Do you see any problems with the simple approach I described?


On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Pavel,
>
> If you are ok with narrowing range for unsigned types then we could add a
> constraint for unsigned types on schema level (like nullability flag)
> and treat them as signed types in storage.
>
> We are going with a separate storage type-system and binary protocol
> type-system, however most of type will match 1 to 1 with storage (native)
> type.
> On .Net side you will either have a separate type id or treat serialized
> value regarding a schema (signed or unsigned flag).
>
> Igor,
>
> I'm not sure users can ever foresee the consequences of using unsigned
> types.
>
> Assume, a user used to unsigned types perfectly works with some database,
> then he turns into Ignite successor confession with our "native"
> unsigned-types support.
> But later, he finds that he can use the power of Ignite Compute on Java for
> some tasks or a new app.
> Finally, the user will either fail to use his unsigned data on Java due or
> face performance issues due to natural Java type system limitations e.g.
> conversion uLong to BigInteger.
>
> I believe that natively supported types with possible value ranges and
> limitations should be known.
> So, the only question is what trade-off we found acceptable: narrowing
> unsigned type range or use types of wider range on systems like Java.
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor Sapego <is...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Actually, I think it is not so hard to implement comparison of unsigned
> > numbers in
> > SQL even in Java, so it does not seem to be a big issue from my
> > perspective.
> >
> > Now to the usage of unsigned types from Java - I think, if a user uses
> > unsigned type
> > in a schema and is going to interact with it from Java he knows what he
> is
> > doing.
> >
> > Mostly they are for use from platforms where they have native support and
> > widely
> > used, like in C++ or .NET, where users currently have to make a manual
> type
> > casting
> > or even just stop using unsigned types when they use Ignite.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Igor
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Andrey,
> > >
> > > I think it is much simpler:
> > > - Add protocol support for those types (basically, just add more type
> > ids)
> > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise representation is the same)
> > >
> > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned integers, so we can simply say that
> > > unsigned value relative comparison is not supported in SQL (equality
> will
> > > work).
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> > > >
> > > > I like your ideas to have i8 or int8 instead of Integer.
> > > > But the naming doesn't address the issue.
> > > >
> > > > I agree internal types should be portable across different systems
> with
> > > and
> > > > without unsigned type support.
> > > > The only issue here is that unsigned types cover different ranges.
> > > >
> > > > Let's assume we want to introduce a uLong.
> > > > It doesn't look like a big deal to add uLong type support at storage
> > > level
> > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and then use it in e.g. .Net only.
> > > > But how we could support it in e.g. Java?
> > > >
> > > > Let's keep in mind Long range is about (2^-63 .. 2^63) and uLong
> range
> > is
> > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > > > 1. The first option is to restrict range to (0 .. 2^63). This allows
> to
> > > use
> > > > signed in e.g.
> > > > Java with no conversion, but doesn't look like a 'real' unsigned
> uLong
> > > > support. Things go worse when the user will use uByte, as limitation
> > can
> > > > make uByte totally unusable.
> > > >
> > > > 2. The second one is to map unsigned types to a type of wider type
> and
> > > add
> > > > a constraint for negative values. E.g. uLong to BigInteger.
> > > > So, we can't use primitive Java type for Long here. However, it is
> > still
> > > > possible to store uLong in 8 bytes, but have a special comparator for
> > > > unsigned types to avoid unwanted deserialization.
> > > >
> > > > WDYT?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupitsyn@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Agree, let's get rid of "long, short, byte" in the protocol
> > definition.
> > > > >
> > > > > We can use Rust style, which is concise and unambiguous:
> > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM Igor Sapego <is...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I totally support that. Also, if we are aiming for
> > > > > > stronger platform-independance,
> > > > > > in our schemas we may want to support bit-notation (int32,
> uint64)?
> > > For
> > > > > > example
> > > > > > "long" can mean a different type on different platforms and it's
> > easy
> > > > to
> > > > > > confuse
> > > > > > them (happens often when using ODBC for example).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > Igor
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think we should support unsigned data types:
> > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Java does not have them, but many other languages do,
> > > > > > > and with the growing number of thin clients this is important.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For example, in current Ignite.NET implementation we store
> > unsigned
> > > > > > values
> > > > > > > as signed internally,
> > > > > > > but this is a huge pain when it comes to metadata, binary
> > objects,
> > > > etc.
> > > > > > > (it is easy to deserialize int as uint when you have a class,
> but
> > > not
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Any objections?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Good point. Both serializers use reflection API.
> > > > > > > > However, we will allow users to configure static schema along
> > > with
> > > > > > > 'strict'
> > > > > > > > schema mode, we still need to validate user classes on client
> > > nodes
> > > > > > > against
> > > > > > > > the latest schema in the grid  and reflection API is the only
> > way
> > > > to
> > > > > do
> > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > One can find a few articles on the internet on how to enable
> > > > > reflection
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'll create a task for supporting GraalVM, and maybe someone
> > who
> > > is
> > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM will suggest a solution or a proper
> > > > workaround.
> > > > > > Or
> > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
> > > > > > > > If no workaround is found, we could allow users to write it's
> > own
> > > > > > > > serializer, but I don't think it is a good idea to expose any
> > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > classes to the public.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM Denis Magda <
> dmagda@apache.org
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the update,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Does any of the serializers take into consideration the
> > > > > > > > > native-image-generation feature of GraalVM?
> > > > > > > > > https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > With the current binary marshaller, we can't even generate
> a
> > > > native
> > > > > > > image
> > > > > > > > > for the code using our thin client APIs.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'd like to continue discussion of IEP-54 (Schema-first
> > > > > approach).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who is interested had a chance to get
> > familiar
> > > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> > > > > > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to ask questions and share your
> > > ideas.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a prototype of serializer [2] for the data
> > > layout
> > > > > > > > described
> > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
> > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I compared 2 approaches to (de)serialize
> > objects,
> > > > the
> > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > uses java reflection/unsafe API and similar to one we
> > already
> > > > use
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > and the second one generates serializer for particular
> user
> > > > class
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > Janino library for compilation.
> > > > > > > > > > Second one shows better results in benchmarks.
> > > > > > > > > > I think we can go with it as default serializer and have
> > > > > > > > reflection-based
> > > > > > > > > > implementation as a fallback if someone will have issues
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > There are a number of tasks under the umbrella ticket [3]
> > > > waiting
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to create more tickets for schema manager
> > > modes
> > > > > > > > > > implementation, but would like to clarify some details.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I thought schemaManager on each node should held:
> > > > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping of "schema version" <--> validated
> local
> > > > > > key/value
> > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
> > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide schema changes history.
> > > > > > > > > > On the client side. Before any key-value API operation we
> > > > should
> > > > > > > > > validate a
> > > > > > > > > > schema for a given key-value pair.
> > > > > > > > > > If there is no local-mapping exists for a given key-value
> > > pair
> > > > or
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema has a more recent version then the
> > > > key-value
> > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > should be validated against the latest version and local
> > > > mapping
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
> > > > > > > > > > If an object doesn't fit to the latest schema then it
> > depends
> > > > on
> > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail the operation ('strict' mode) or a new
> > > > mapping
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > created and a new schema version should be propagated to
> > the
> > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On the server side we usually have no key-value classes
> and
> > > we
> > > > > > > operate
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> > > > > > > > > > As schema change history is available and a tuple has
> > schema
> > > > > > version,
> > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > it is possible to upgrade any received tuple to the last
> > > > version
> > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > desialization.
> > > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow nodes to send key-value pairs of
> > previous
> > > > > > > versions
> > > > > > > > > (if
> > > > > > > > > > they didn't receive a schema update yet) without
> reverting
> > > > schema
> > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > made by a node with newer classes.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the same?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > > > > > > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Ivan Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Please do not ignore history. We had a thread [1] with
> > many
> > > > > > bright
> > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can resume it.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <
> > dmagda@apache.org
> > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks for explaining.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we need to have a separate discussion
> thread
> > > for
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms substitution. I'll appreciate it if you
> > > start
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > sharing pointers to any relevant IEPs and reasoning
> > > behind
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > suggested
> > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the wording in the IEP is a little bit
> > > confusing.
> > > > > All
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > >> that you should not create nested POJOs, but rather
> > > inline
> > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > into a
> > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO that is mapped to a particular schema.
> In
> > > > other
> > > > > > > words,
> > > > > > > > > > > nested
> > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this correct? Please let me know if I'm
> > missing
> > > > > > > > something.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the "cache" term, I agree that it is
> outdated,
> > > but
> > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can replace it with. "Table" is tightly
> > > associated
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > SQL,
> > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional in our case. Do you want to create a
> > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM Denis Magda <
> > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked the IEP again and have a few
> questions.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects and collections are not
> > > allowed
> > > > as
> > > > > > > > column
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should either be inlined into
> schema,
> > or
> > > > > > stored
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL code snippet showing how
> the
> > > > > inlining
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to work?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep using the terms "cache" and "table"
> > > > > throughout
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right time to discuss an alternate name that
> > would
> > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the "table" should stay and the "cache"
> > > > should
> > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one of the primary APIs in Ignite and
> > that
> > > > DDL
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > supported
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM Valentin
> Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your point. I agree that with the automatic
> > > > updates
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last territory.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we support automatic evolution, we
> can
> > > as
> > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a cache without schema and inferring it
> > from
> > > > the
> > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other words, we can have both "schema-first" and
> > > > > > > "schema-last"
> > > > > > > > > > modes.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got your concern now. As it is
> > mostly
> > > > > > > regarding
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > terminology, I am absolutely fine with changing
> > the
> > > > > name
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the approach best. Dynamic or evolving schema
> > > sounds
> > > > > > > great. I
> > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > corresponding changes to the IEP once we settle
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > > > name.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в 11:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for your answer!
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My understanding is a little bit different.
> > Yes,
> > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > evolution
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > definitely should be possible. But I see a
> main
> > > > > > > difference
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > "how
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is updated". I treat a common SQL
> > approach
> > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data manipulation operations are clearly
> > > > > separated
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > interesting capabilities, e.g. preventing
> > > untended
> > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data operations, restricting user
> > > > > permissions
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first means that schema exists in
> > > advance
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is compliant with it - that's exactly what is
> > > > > proposed.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last approach mentioned in [1] also
> > > > assumes
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is inferred from data. Is not
> it
> > > > more
> > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing approach?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would like to say, that my main concern
> > so
> > > > far
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > terminology. And I suppose if it confuses me
> > then
> > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused as well. My feeling is closer to
> > > "dynamic
> > > > or
> > > > > > > > liquid
> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47 GMT+03:00, Valentin
> Kulichenko
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an issue with that.
> Schema-first
> > > > means
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance and all the stored data is
> compliant
> > > with
> > > > > it
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is proposed. There are no restrictions
> > > > prohibiting
> > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:52 PM Ivan
> > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit confused with
> terminology.
> > > My
> > > > > > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see part X Semi
> Structured
> > > > Data).
> > > > > > Can
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema" approach as a kind of
> > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <
> > > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on
> > the
> > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate
> running
> > > on
> > > > > top
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing
> > exactly
> > > > on
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need
> > is
> > > > SQL
> > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes, if all the ORM
> > integrations
> > > > use
> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > internally, then they can easily
> translate
> > > an
> > > > > > Entity
> > > > > > > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE statement that lists all
> the
> > > > > > object's
> > > > > > > > > > fields.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data integration is already based
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be improved once the schema-first
> > > approach
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of usability issues.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would revise the Hibernate integration
> > as
> > > > well
> > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say if it's used a lot but
> > > Spring
> > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind, I'll loop you in as
> long
> > > as
> > > > > > you've
> > > > > > > > > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support for Micornaut Data
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came across some challenges. Just watch
> > this
> > > > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite 3.0.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 5:11 PM Valentin
> > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally speaking, I believe that the
> > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the issue if duplicate fields
> > in
> > > > key
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> because
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be created for a cache, not
> > for
> > > > an
> > > > > > > > object,
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the schema will define
> whether
> > > > there
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > primary
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which fields are included in case
> > there
> > > > is
> > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be compliant with this, so it
> > > > becomes
> > > > > > > > fairly
> > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a set of records, rather
> > than
> > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on
> > the
> > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate
> running
> > > on
> > > > > top
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing
> > exactly
> > > > on
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need
> > is
> > > > SQL
> > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:08 PM Denis
> > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would propose adding another point
> to
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > motivations
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to the ORM frameworks such as
> > > > Spring
> > > > > > > Data,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the storage engine
> requires
> > to
> > > > > > > > distinguish
> > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones that complicate the usage
> of
> > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially if a key object comprises
> > > > several
> > > > > > > > > fields).
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice if the new
> schema-first
> > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single entity object when it comes to
> > the
> > > > > ORMs.
> > > > > > > > With
> > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a key and value. Just
> want
> > to
> > > > be
> > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the essential public APIs that
> > would
> > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > single-entity
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:50 PM
> > Valentin
> > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the big changes proposed for
> > > > Ignite
> > > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first approach". To add
> more
> > > > > clarity,
> > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this change:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a look and let me know
> if
> > > > there
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions, or objections.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>]

Pavel,

If you are ok with narrowing range for unsigned types then we could add a
constraint for unsigned types on schema level (like nullability flag)
and treat them as signed types in storage.

We are going with a separate storage type-system and binary protocol
type-system, however most of type will match 1 to 1 with storage (native)
type.
On .Net side you will either have a separate type id or treat serialized
value regarding a schema (signed or unsigned flag).

Igor,

I'm not sure users can ever foresee the consequences of using unsigned
types.

Assume, a user used to unsigned types perfectly works with some database,
then he turns into Ignite successor confession with our "native"
unsigned-types support.
But later, he finds that he can use the power of Ignite Compute on Java for
some tasks or a new app.
Finally, the user will either fail to use his unsigned data on Java due or
face performance issues due to natural Java type system limitations e.g.
conversion uLong to BigInteger.

I believe that natively supported types with possible value ranges and
limitations should be known.
So, the only question is what trade-off we found acceptable: narrowing
unsigned type range or use types of wider range on systems like Java.

On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor Sapego <is...@apache.org> wrote:

> Actually, I think it is not so hard to implement comparison of unsigned
> numbers in
> SQL even in Java, so it does not seem to be a big issue from my
> perspective.
>
> Now to the usage of unsigned types from Java - I think, if a user uses
> unsigned type
> in a schema and is going to interact with it from Java he knows what he is
> doing.
>
> Mostly they are for use from platforms where they have native support and
> widely
> used, like in C++ or .NET, where users currently have to make a manual type
> casting
> or even just stop using unsigned types when they use Ignite.
>
> Best Regards,
> Igor
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Andrey,
> >
> > I think it is much simpler:
> > - Add protocol support for those types (basically, just add more type
> ids)
> > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise representation is the same)
> >
> > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned integers, so we can simply say that
> > unsigned value relative comparison is not supported in SQL (equality will
> > work).
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> > >
> > > I like your ideas to have i8 or int8 instead of Integer.
> > > But the naming doesn't address the issue.
> > >
> > > I agree internal types should be portable across different systems with
> > and
> > > without unsigned type support.
> > > The only issue here is that unsigned types cover different ranges.
> > >
> > > Let's assume we want to introduce a uLong.
> > > It doesn't look like a big deal to add uLong type support at storage
> > level
> > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and then use it in e.g. .Net only.
> > > But how we could support it in e.g. Java?
> > >
> > > Let's keep in mind Long range is about (2^-63 .. 2^63) and uLong range
> is
> > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > > 1. The first option is to restrict range to (0 .. 2^63). This allows to
> > use
> > > signed in e.g.
> > > Java with no conversion, but doesn't look like a 'real' unsigned uLong
> > > support. Things go worse when the user will use uByte, as limitation
> can
> > > make uByte totally unusable.
> > >
> > > 2. The second one is to map unsigned types to a type of wider type and
> > add
> > > a constraint for negative values. E.g. uLong to BigInteger.
> > > So, we can't use primitive Java type for Long here. However, it is
> still
> > > possible to store uLong in 8 bytes, but have a special comparator for
> > > unsigned types to avoid unwanted deserialization.
> > >
> > > WDYT?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Agree, let's get rid of "long, short, byte" in the protocol
> definition.
> > > >
> > > > We can use Rust style, which is concise and unambiguous:
> > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM Igor Sapego <is...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Pavel,
> > > > >
> > > > > I totally support that. Also, if we are aiming for
> > > > > stronger platform-independance,
> > > > > in our schemas we may want to support bit-notation (int32, uint64)?
> > For
> > > > > example
> > > > > "long" can mean a different type on different platforms and it's
> easy
> > > to
> > > > > confuse
> > > > > them (happens often when using ODBC for example).
> > > > >
> > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > Igor
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> ptupitsyn@apache.org
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think we should support unsigned data types:
> > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Java does not have them, but many other languages do,
> > > > > > and with the growing number of thin clients this is important.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For example, in current Ignite.NET implementation we store
> unsigned
> > > > > values
> > > > > > as signed internally,
> > > > > > but this is a huge pain when it comes to metadata, binary
> objects,
> > > etc.
> > > > > > (it is easy to deserialize int as uint when you have a class, but
> > not
> > > > > with
> > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any objections?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Good point. Both serializers use reflection API.
> > > > > > > However, we will allow users to configure static schema along
> > with
> > > > > > 'strict'
> > > > > > > schema mode, we still need to validate user classes on client
> > nodes
> > > > > > against
> > > > > > > the latest schema in the grid  and reflection API is the only
> way
> > > to
> > > > do
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > One can find a few articles on the internet on how to enable
> > > > reflection
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'll create a task for supporting GraalVM, and maybe someone
> who
> > is
> > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM will suggest a solution or a proper
> > > workaround.
> > > > > Or
> > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
> > > > > > > If no workaround is found, we could allow users to write it's
> own
> > > > > > > serializer, but I don't think it is a good idea to expose any
> > > > internal
> > > > > > > classes to the public.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the update,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Does any of the serializers take into consideration the
> > > > > > > > native-image-generation feature of GraalVM?
> > > > > > > > https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > With the current binary marshaller, we can't even generate a
> > > native
> > > > > > image
> > > > > > > > for the code using our thin client APIs.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'd like to continue discussion of IEP-54 (Schema-first
> > > > approach).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who is interested had a chance to get
> familiar
> > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> > > > > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to ask questions and share your
> > ideas.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I've prepared a prototype of serializer [2] for the data
> > layout
> > > > > > > described
> > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
> > > > > > > > > In prototy, I compared 2 approaches to (de)serialize
> objects,
> > > the
> > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > uses java reflection/unsafe API and similar to one we
> already
> > > use
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > and the second one generates serializer for particular user
> > > class
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > Janino library for compilation.
> > > > > > > > > Second one shows better results in benchmarks.
> > > > > > > > > I think we can go with it as default serializer and have
> > > > > > > reflection-based
> > > > > > > > > implementation as a fallback if someone will have issues
> with
> > > the
> > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > There are a number of tasks under the umbrella ticket [3]
> > > waiting
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > assignee.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to create more tickets for schema manager
> > modes
> > > > > > > > > implementation, but would like to clarify some details.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I thought schemaManager on each node should held:
> > > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping of "schema version" <--> validated local
> > > > > key/value
> > > > > > > > > classes pair.
> > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide schema changes history.
> > > > > > > > > On the client side. Before any key-value API operation we
> > > should
> > > > > > > > validate a
> > > > > > > > > schema for a given key-value pair.
> > > > > > > > > If there is no local-mapping exists for a given key-value
> > pair
> > > or
> > > > > if
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema has a more recent version then the
> > > key-value
> > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > should be validated against the latest version and local
> > > mapping
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
> > > > > > > > > If an object doesn't fit to the latest schema then it
> depends
> > > on
> > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > mode: either fail the operation ('strict' mode) or a new
> > > mapping
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > created and a new schema version should be propagated to
> the
> > > > > cluster.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On the server side we usually have no key-value classes and
> > we
> > > > > > operate
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > tuples.
> > > > > > > > > As schema change history is available and a tuple has
> schema
> > > > > version,
> > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > it is possible to upgrade any received tuple to the last
> > > version
> > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > desialization.
> > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow nodes to send key-value pairs of
> previous
> > > > > > versions
> > > > > > > > (if
> > > > > > > > > they didn't receive a schema update yet) without reverting
> > > schema
> > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > made by a node with newer classes.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the same?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > > > > > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Ivan Pavlukhin <
> > > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Please do not ignore history. We had a thread [1] with
> many
> > > > > bright
> > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can resume it.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <
> dmagda@apache.org
> > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks for explaining.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we need to have a separate discussion thread
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms substitution. I'll appreciate it if you
> > start
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > sharing pointers to any relevant IEPs and reasoning
> > behind
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > suggested
> > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the wording in the IEP is a little bit
> > confusing.
> > > > All
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > >> that you should not create nested POJOs, but rather
> > inline
> > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > into a
> > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO that is mapped to a particular schema. In
> > > other
> > > > > > words,
> > > > > > > > > > nested
> > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not supported.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this correct? Please let me know if I'm
> missing
> > > > > > > something.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> As for the "cache" term, I agree that it is outdated,
> > but
> > > > I'm
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > >> what we can replace it with. "Table" is tightly
> > associated
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > SQL,
> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional in our case. Do you want to create a
> > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM Denis Magda <
> > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked the IEP again and have a few questions.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects and collections are not
> > allowed
> > > as
> > > > > > > column
> > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should either be inlined into schema,
> or
> > > > > stored
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL code snippet showing how the
> > > > inlining
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to work?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep using the terms "cache" and "table"
> > > > throughout
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > IEP.
> > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > > > > > > > > > >>> the right time to discuss an alternate name that
> would
> > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the "table" should stay and the "cache"
> > > should
> > > > go
> > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
> > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one of the primary APIs in Ignite and
> that
> > > DDL
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > supported
> > > > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > >>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your point. I agree that with the automatic
> > > updates
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last territory.
> > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we support automatic evolution, we can
> > as
> > > > well
> > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a cache without schema and inferring it
> from
> > > the
> > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > other words, we can have both "schema-first" and
> > > > > > "schema-last"
> > > > > > > > > modes.
> > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got your concern now. As it is
> mostly
> > > > > > regarding
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > terminology, I am absolutely fine with changing
> the
> > > > name
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > whatever
> > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the approach best. Dynamic or evolving schema
> > sounds
> > > > > > great. I
> > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > corresponding changes to the IEP once we settle
> on
> > > the
> > > > > > name.
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в 11:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for your answer!
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My understanding is a little bit different.
> Yes,
> > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > evolution
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > definitely should be possible. But I see a main
> > > > > > difference
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > "how
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is updated". I treat a common SQL
> approach
> > > > > > > > schema-first.
> > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data manipulation operations are clearly
> > > > separated
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > interesting capabilities, e.g. preventing
> > untended
> > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data operations, restricting user
> > > > permissions
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first means that schema exists in
> > advance
> > > > and
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is compliant with it - that's exactly what is
> > > > proposed.
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last approach mentioned in [1] also
> > > assumes
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is inferred from data. Is not it
> > > more
> > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing approach?
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would like to say, that my main concern
> so
> > > far
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > terminology. And I suppose if it confuses me
> then
> > > > > others
> > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused as well. My feeling is closer to
> > "dynamic
> > > or
> > > > > > > liquid
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47 GMT+03:00, Valentin Kulichenko
> <
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an issue with that. Schema-first
> > > means
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance and all the stored data is compliant
> > with
> > > > it
> > > > > -
> > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is proposed. There are no restrictions
> > > prohibiting
> > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:52 PM Ivan
> Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > >>> vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit confused with terminology.
> > My
> > > > > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see part X Semi Structured
> > > Data).
> > > > > Can
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema" approach as a kind of
> > > > > > "schema-first"?
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <
> > > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on
> the
> > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running
> > on
> > > > top
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing
> exactly
> > > on
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need
> is
> > > SQL
> > > > > API
> > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes, if all the ORM
> integrations
> > > use
> > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > internally, then they can easily translate
> > an
> > > > > Entity
> > > > > > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE statement that lists all the
> > > > > object's
> > > > > > > > > fields.
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data integration is already based
> on
> > > the
> > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be improved once the schema-first
> > approach
> > > is
> > > > > > > > > supported.
> > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of usability issues.
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would revise the Hibernate integration
> as
> > > well
> > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say if it's used a lot but
> > Spring
> > > > > Data
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind, I'll loop you in as long
> > as
> > > > > you've
> > > > > > > > > started
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support for Micornaut Data
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >
> > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came across some challenges. Just watch
> this
> > > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite 3.0.
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 5:11 PM Valentin
> > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally speaking, I believe that the
> > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the issue if duplicate fields
> in
> > > key
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> because
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be created for a cache, not
> for
> > > an
> > > > > > > object,
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the schema will define whether
> > > there
> > > > > is
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > primary
> > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which fields are included in case
> there
> > > is
> > > > > one.
> > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be compliant with this, so it
> > > becomes
> > > > > > > fairly
> > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a set of records, rather
> than
> > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on
> the
> > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running
> > on
> > > > top
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing
> exactly
> > > on
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need
> is
> > > SQL
> > > > > API
> > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:08 PM Denis
> > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > >>> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would propose adding another point to
> > the
> > > > > > > > motivations
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to the ORM frameworks such as
> > > Spring
> > > > > > Data,
> > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the storage engine requires
> to
> > > > > > > distinguish
> > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones that complicate the usage of
> > > > Ignite
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially if a key object comprises
> > > several
> > > > > > > > fields).
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice if the new schema-first
> > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single entity object when it comes to
> the
> > > > ORMs.
> > > > > > > With
> > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a key and value. Just want
> to
> > > be
> > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the essential public APIs that
> would
> > > > > support
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > single-entity
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:50 PM
> Valentin
> > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the big changes proposed for
> > > Ignite
> > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first approach". To add more
> > > > clarity,
> > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this change:
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a look and let me know if
> > > there
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions, or objections.
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >
> >
>


-- 
Best regards,
Andrey V. Mashenkov

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Igor Sapego <is...@apache.org>]

Actually, I think it is not so hard to implement comparison of unsigned
numbers in
SQL even in Java, so it does not seem to be a big issue from my perspective.

Now to the usage of unsigned types from Java - I think, if a user uses
unsigned type
in a schema and is going to interact with it from Java he knows what he is
doing.

Mostly they are for use from platforms where they have native support and
widely
used, like in C++ or .NET, where users currently have to make a manual type
casting
or even just stop using unsigned types when they use Ignite.

Best Regards,
Igor


On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org> wrote:

> Andrey,
>
> I think it is much simpler:
> - Add protocol support for those types (basically, just add more type ids)
> - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise representation is the same)
>
> ANSI SQL does not have unsigned integers, so we can simply say that
> unsigned value relative comparison is not supported in SQL (equality will
> work).
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> >
> > I like your ideas to have i8 or int8 instead of Integer.
> > But the naming doesn't address the issue.
> >
> > I agree internal types should be portable across different systems with
> and
> > without unsigned type support.
> > The only issue here is that unsigned types cover different ranges.
> >
> > Let's assume we want to introduce a uLong.
> > It doesn't look like a big deal to add uLong type support at storage
> level
> > and fit it to a 8 bytes and then use it in e.g. .Net only.
> > But how we could support it in e.g. Java?
> >
> > Let's keep in mind Long range is about (2^-63 .. 2^63) and uLong range is
> > (0 .. 2^64)
> > 1. The first option is to restrict range to (0 .. 2^63). This allows to
> use
> > signed in e.g.
> > Java with no conversion, but doesn't look like a 'real' unsigned uLong
> > support. Things go worse when the user will use uByte, as limitation can
> > make uByte totally unusable.
> >
> > 2. The second one is to map unsigned types to a type of wider type and
> add
> > a constraint for negative values. E.g. uLong to BigInteger.
> > So, we can't use primitive Java type for Long here. However, it is still
> > possible to store uLong in 8 bytes, but have a special comparator for
> > unsigned types to avoid unwanted deserialization.
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Agree, let's get rid of "long, short, byte" in the protocol definition.
> > >
> > > We can use Rust style, which is concise and unambiguous:
> > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM Igor Sapego <is...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Pavel,
> > > >
> > > > I totally support that. Also, if we are aiming for
> > > > stronger platform-independance,
> > > > in our schemas we may want to support bit-notation (int32, uint64)?
> For
> > > > example
> > > > "long" can mean a different type on different platforms and it's easy
> > to
> > > > confuse
> > > > them (happens often when using ODBC for example).
> > > >
> > > > Best Regards,
> > > > Igor
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupitsyn@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Igniters,
> > > > >
> > > > > I think we should support unsigned data types:
> > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
> > > > >
> > > > > Java does not have them, but many other languages do,
> > > > > and with the growing number of thin clients this is important.
> > > > >
> > > > > For example, in current Ignite.NET implementation we store unsigned
> > > > values
> > > > > as signed internally,
> > > > > but this is a huge pain when it comes to metadata, binary objects,
> > etc.
> > > > > (it is easy to deserialize int as uint when you have a class, but
> not
> > > > with
> > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > > >
> > > > > Any objections?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Good point. Both serializers use reflection API.
> > > > > > However, we will allow users to configure static schema along
> with
> > > > > 'strict'
> > > > > > schema mode, we still need to validate user classes on client
> nodes
> > > > > against
> > > > > > the latest schema in the grid  and reflection API is the only way
> > to
> > > do
> > > > > it.
> > > > > > One can find a few articles on the internet on how to enable
> > > reflection
> > > > > in
> > > > > > GraalVM.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'll create a task for supporting GraalVM, and maybe someone who
> is
> > > > > > familiar with GraalVM will suggest a solution or a proper
> > workaround.
> > > > Or
> > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
> > > > > > If no workaround is found, we could allow users to write it's own
> > > > > > serializer, but I don't think it is a good idea to expose any
> > > internal
> > > > > > classes to the public.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the update,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Does any of the serializers take into consideration the
> > > > > > > native-image-generation feature of GraalVM?
> > > > > > > https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > With the current binary marshaller, we can't even generate a
> > native
> > > > > image
> > > > > > > for the code using our thin client APIs.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'd like to continue discussion of IEP-54 (Schema-first
> > > approach).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hope everyone who is interested had a chance to get familiar
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> > > > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to ask questions and share your
> ideas.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've prepared a prototype of serializer [2] for the data
> layout
> > > > > > described
> > > > > > > > in the proposal.
> > > > > > > > In prototy, I compared 2 approaches to (de)serialize objects,
> > the
> > > > > first
> > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > uses java reflection/unsafe API and similar to one we already
> > use
> > > > in
> > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > and the second one generates serializer for particular user
> > class
> > > > and
> > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > Janino library for compilation.
> > > > > > > > Second one shows better results in benchmarks.
> > > > > > > > I think we can go with it as default serializer and have
> > > > > > reflection-based
> > > > > > > > implementation as a fallback if someone will have issues with
> > the
> > > > > first
> > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There are a number of tasks under the umbrella ticket [3]
> > waiting
> > > > for
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > assignee.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to create more tickets for schema manager
> modes
> > > > > > > > implementation, but would like to clarify some details.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I thought schemaManager on each node should held:
> > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping of "schema version" <--> validated local
> > > > key/value
> > > > > > > > classes pair.
> > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide schema changes history.
> > > > > > > > On the client side. Before any key-value API operation we
> > should
> > > > > > > validate a
> > > > > > > > schema for a given key-value pair.
> > > > > > > > If there is no local-mapping exists for a given key-value
> pair
> > or
> > > > if
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > cluster wide schema has a more recent version then the
> > key-value
> > > > pair
> > > > > > > > should be validated against the latest version and local
> > mapping
> > > > > should
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
> > > > > > > > If an object doesn't fit to the latest schema then it depends
> > on
> > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > mode: either fail the operation ('strict' mode) or a new
> > mapping
> > > > > should
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > created and a new schema version should be propagated to the
> > > > cluster.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On the server side we usually have no key-value classes and
> we
> > > > > operate
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > tuples.
> > > > > > > > As schema change history is available and a tuple has schema
> > > > version,
> > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > it is possible to upgrade any received tuple to the last
> > version
> > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > desialization.
> > > > > > > > Thus we could allow nodes to send key-value pairs of previous
> > > > > versions
> > > > > > > (if
> > > > > > > > they didn't receive a schema update yet) without reverting
> > schema
> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > made by a node with newer classes.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the same?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > > > > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Ivan Pavlukhin <
> > > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Please do not ignore history. We had a thread [1] with many
> > > > bright
> > > > > > > > > ideas. We can resume it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org
> >:
> > > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks for explaining.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Agree that we need to have a separate discussion thread
> for
> > > the
> > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms substitution. I'll appreciate it if you
> start
> > > the
> > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > sharing pointers to any relevant IEPs and reasoning
> behind
> > > the
> > > > > > > > suggested
> > > > > > > > > > change.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> I guess the wording in the IEP is a little bit
> confusing.
> > > All
> > > > it
> > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > >> that you should not create nested POJOs, but rather
> inline
> > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > into a
> > > > > > > > > >> single POJO that is mapped to a particular schema. In
> > other
> > > > > words,
> > > > > > > > > nested
> > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not supported.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this correct? Please let me know if I'm missing
> > > > > > something.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> As for the "cache" term, I agree that it is outdated,
> but
> > > I'm
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > >> what we can replace it with. "Table" is tightly
> associated
> > > > with
> > > > > > SQL,
> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional in our case. Do you want to create a
> > > separate
> > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > >> about this?
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM Denis Magda <
> > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked the IEP again and have a few questions.
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects and collections are not
> allowed
> > as
> > > > > > column
> > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should either be inlined into schema, or
> > > > stored
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL code snippet showing how the
> > > inlining
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > POJOs
> > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to work?
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep using the terms "cache" and "table"
> > > throughout
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > IEP.
> > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > > > > > > > > >>> the right time to discuss an alternate name that would
> > > > replace
> > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> > > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the "table" should stay and the "cache"
> > should
> > > go
> > > > > > > > > >>> considering
> > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one of the primary APIs in Ignite and that
> > DDL
> > > is
> > > > > > > > supported
> > > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > >>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your point. I agree that with the automatic
> > updates
> > > > we
> > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last territory.
> > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we support automatic evolution, we can
> as
> > > well
> > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a cache without schema and inferring it from
> > the
> > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > > > > > > > > >>> > other words, we can have both "schema-first" and
> > > > > "schema-last"
> > > > > > > > modes.
> > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you think?
> > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > > >>> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got your concern now. As it is mostly
> > > > > regarding
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > terminology, I am absolutely fine with changing the
> > > name
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > whatever
> > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > the approach best. Dynamic or evolving schema
> sounds
> > > > > great. I
> > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > >>> make
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > corresponding changes to the IEP once we settle on
> > the
> > > > > name.
> > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в 11:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for your answer!
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My understanding is a little bit different. Yes,
> > > schema
> > > > > > > > evolution
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > definitely should be possible. But I see a main
> > > > > difference
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > "how
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is updated". I treat a common SQL approach
> > > > > > > schema-first.
> > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data manipulation operations are clearly
> > > separated
> > > > > and
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > interesting capabilities, e.g. preventing
> untended
> > > > schema
> > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data operations, restricting user
> > > permissions
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first means that schema exists in
> advance
> > > and
> > > > > all
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is compliant with it - that's exactly what is
> > > proposed.
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last approach mentioned in [1] also
> > assumes
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is inferred from data. Is not it
> > more
> > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing approach?
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would like to say, that my main concern so
> > far
> > > is
> > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > terminology. And I suppose if it confuses me then
> > > > others
> > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused as well. My feeling is closer to
> "dynamic
> > or
> > > > > > liquid
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47 GMT+03:00, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an issue with that. Schema-first
> > means
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance and all the stored data is compliant
> with
> > > it
> > > > -
> > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is proposed. There are no restrictions
> > prohibiting
> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:52 PM Ivan Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > >>> vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit confused with terminology.
> My
> > > > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see part X Semi Structured
> > Data).
> > > > Can
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
> > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema" approach as a kind of
> > > > > "schema-first"?
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <
> > > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the
> > > > relation
> > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running
> on
> > > top
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is
> > SQL
> > > > API
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes, if all the ORM integrations
> > use
> > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > internally, then they can easily translate
> an
> > > > Entity
> > > > > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > >>> into
> > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE statement that lists all the
> > > > object's
> > > > > > > > fields.
> > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data integration is already based on
> > the
> > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be improved once the schema-first
> approach
> > is
> > > > > > > > supported.
> > > > > > > > > >>> That
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of usability issues.
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would revise the Hibernate integration as
> > well
> > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say if it's used a lot but
> Spring
> > > > Data
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind, I'll loop you in as long
> as
> > > > you've
> > > > > > > > started
> > > > > > > > > >>> > working
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support for Micornaut Data
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >
> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came across some challenges. Just watch this
> > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite 3.0.
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 5:11 PM Valentin
> > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally speaking, I believe that the
> > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the issue if duplicate fields in
> > key
> > > > and
> > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> because
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be created for a cache, not for
> > an
> > > > > > object,
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the schema will define whether
> > there
> > > > is
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > primary
> > > > > > > > > >>> key
> > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which fields are included in case there
> > is
> > > > one.
> > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be compliant with this, so it
> > becomes
> > > > > > fairly
> > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a set of records, rather than
> > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > pairs.
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the
> > > > relation
> > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running
> on
> > > top
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is
> > SQL
> > > > API
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:08 PM Denis
> Magda <
> > > > > > > > > >>> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would propose adding another point to
> the
> > > > > > > motivations
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to the ORM frameworks such as
> > Spring
> > > > > Data,
> > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the storage engine requires to
> > > > > > distinguish
> > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones that complicate the usage of
> > > Ignite
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially if a key object comprises
> > several
> > > > > > > fields).
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice if the new schema-first
> > > > approach
> > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single entity object when it comes to the
> > > ORMs.
> > > > > > With
> > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a key and value. Just want to
> > be
> > > > sure
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the essential public APIs that would
> > > > support
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > single-entity
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:50 PM Valentin
> > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the big changes proposed for
> > Ignite
> > > > 3.0
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first approach". To add more
> > > clarity,
> > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this change:
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a look and let me know if
> > there
> > > > are
> > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions, or objections.
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >
>

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>]

Andrey,

I think it is much simpler:
- Add protocol support for those types (basically, just add more type ids)
- Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise representation is the same)

ANSI SQL does not have unsigned integers, so we can simply say that
unsigned value relative comparison is not supported in SQL (equality will
work).


On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
>
> I like your ideas to have i8 or int8 instead of Integer.
> But the naming doesn't address the issue.
>
> I agree internal types should be portable across different systems with and
> without unsigned type support.
> The only issue here is that unsigned types cover different ranges.
>
> Let's assume we want to introduce a uLong.
> It doesn't look like a big deal to add uLong type support at storage level
> and fit it to a 8 bytes and then use it in e.g. .Net only.
> But how we could support it in e.g. Java?
>
> Let's keep in mind Long range is about (2^-63 .. 2^63) and uLong range is
> (0 .. 2^64)
> 1. The first option is to restrict range to (0 .. 2^63). This allows to use
> signed in e.g.
> Java with no conversion, but doesn't look like a 'real' unsigned uLong
> support. Things go worse when the user will use uByte, as limitation can
> make uByte totally unusable.
>
> 2. The second one is to map unsigned types to a type of wider type and add
> a constraint for negative values. E.g. uLong to BigInteger.
> So, we can't use primitive Java type for Long here. However, it is still
> possible to store uLong in 8 bytes, but have a special comparator for
> unsigned types to avoid unwanted deserialization.
>
> WDYT?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Agree, let's get rid of "long, short, byte" in the protocol definition.
> >
> > We can use Rust style, which is concise and unambiguous:
> > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM Igor Sapego <is...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Pavel,
> > >
> > > I totally support that. Also, if we are aiming for
> > > stronger platform-independance,
> > > in our schemas we may want to support bit-notation (int32, uint64)? For
> > > example
> > > "long" can mean a different type on different platforms and it's easy
> to
> > > confuse
> > > them (happens often when using ODBC for example).
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Igor
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Igniters,
> > > >
> > > > I think we should support unsigned data types:
> > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
> > > >
> > > > Java does not have them, but many other languages do,
> > > > and with the growing number of thin clients this is important.
> > > >
> > > > For example, in current Ignite.NET implementation we store unsigned
> > > values
> > > > as signed internally,
> > > > but this is a huge pain when it comes to metadata, binary objects,
> etc.
> > > > (it is easy to deserialize int as uint when you have a class, but not
> > > with
> > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > >
> > > > Any objections?
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Denis,
> > > > >
> > > > > Good point. Both serializers use reflection API.
> > > > > However, we will allow users to configure static schema along with
> > > > 'strict'
> > > > > schema mode, we still need to validate user classes on client nodes
> > > > against
> > > > > the latest schema in the grid  and reflection API is the only way
> to
> > do
> > > > it.
> > > > > One can find a few articles on the internet on how to enable
> > reflection
> > > > in
> > > > > GraalVM.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll create a task for supporting GraalVM, and maybe someone who is
> > > > > familiar with GraalVM will suggest a solution or a proper
> workaround.
> > > Or
> > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
> > > > > If no workaround is found, we could allow users to write it's own
> > > > > serializer, but I don't think it is a good idea to expose any
> > internal
> > > > > classes to the public.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the update,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does any of the serializers take into consideration the
> > > > > > native-image-generation feature of GraalVM?
> > > > > > https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With the current binary marshaller, we can't even generate a
> native
> > > > image
> > > > > > for the code using our thin client APIs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'd like to continue discussion of IEP-54 (Schema-first
> > approach).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hope everyone who is interested had a chance to get familiar
> with
> > > the
> > > > > > > proposal [1].
> > > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to ask questions and share your ideas.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've prepared a prototype of serializer [2] for the data layout
> > > > > described
> > > > > > > in the proposal.
> > > > > > > In prototy, I compared 2 approaches to (de)serialize objects,
> the
> > > > first
> > > > > > one
> > > > > > > uses java reflection/unsafe API and similar to one we already
> use
> > > in
> > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > and the second one generates serializer for particular user
> class
> > > and
> > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > Janino library for compilation.
> > > > > > > Second one shows better results in benchmarks.
> > > > > > > I think we can go with it as default serializer and have
> > > > > reflection-based
> > > > > > > implementation as a fallback if someone will have issues with
> the
> > > > first
> > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are a number of tasks under the umbrella ticket [3]
> waiting
> > > for
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > assignee.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to create more tickets for schema manager modes
> > > > > > > implementation, but would like to clarify some details.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I thought schemaManager on each node should held:
> > > > > > >   1. Local mapping of "schema version" <--> validated local
> > > key/value
> > > > > > > classes pair.
> > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide schema changes history.
> > > > > > > On the client side. Before any key-value API operation we
> should
> > > > > > validate a
> > > > > > > schema for a given key-value pair.
> > > > > > > If there is no local-mapping exists for a given key-value pair
> or
> > > if
> > > > a
> > > > > > > cluster wide schema has a more recent version then the
> key-value
> > > pair
> > > > > > > should be validated against the latest version and local
> mapping
> > > > should
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > updated/actualized.
> > > > > > > If an object doesn't fit to the latest schema then it depends
> on
> > > > schema
> > > > > > > mode: either fail the operation ('strict' mode) or a new
> mapping
> > > > should
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > created and a new schema version should be propagated to the
> > > cluster.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On the server side we usually have no key-value classes and we
> > > > operate
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > tuples.
> > > > > > > As schema change history is available and a tuple has schema
> > > version,
> > > > > > then
> > > > > > > it is possible to upgrade any received tuple to the last
> version
> > > > > without
> > > > > > > desialization.
> > > > > > > Thus we could allow nodes to send key-value pairs of previous
> > > > versions
> > > > > > (if
> > > > > > > they didn't receive a schema update yet) without reverting
> schema
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > > made by a node with newer classes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the same?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > [2]
> > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > > > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Ivan Pavlukhin <
> > > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Please do not ignore history. We had a thread [1] with many
> > > bright
> > > > > > > > ideas. We can resume it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>:
> > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks for explaining.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Agree that we need to have a separate discussion thread for
> > the
> > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > "cache" terms substitution. I'll appreciate it if you start
> > the
> > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > sharing pointers to any relevant IEPs and reasoning behind
> > the
> > > > > > > suggested
> > > > > > > > > change.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> I guess the wording in the IEP is a little bit confusing.
> > All
> > > it
> > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >> that you should not create nested POJOs, but rather inline
> > > > fields
> > > > > > > into a
> > > > > > > > >> single POJO that is mapped to a particular schema. In
> other
> > > > words,
> > > > > > > > nested
> > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not supported.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this correct? Please let me know if I'm missing
> > > > > something.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> As for the "cache" term, I agree that it is outdated, but
> > I'm
> > > > not
> > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > >> what we can replace it with. "Table" is tightly associated
> > > with
> > > > > SQL,
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional in our case. Do you want to create a
> > separate
> > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > >> about this?
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM Denis Magda <
> > dmagda@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> I've checked the IEP again and have a few questions.
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects and collections are not allowed
> as
> > > > > column
> > > > > > > > >>> values.
> > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should either be inlined into schema, or
> > > stored
> > > > as
> > > > > > > BLOBs
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL code snippet showing how the
> > inlining
> > > > of
> > > > > > > POJOs
> > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > > > > > > >>> supposed to work?
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep using the terms "cache" and "table"
> > throughout
> > > > the
> > > > > > IEP.
> > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > >>> it
> > > > > > > > >>> the right time to discuss an alternate name that would
> > > replace
> > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > >>> too?
> > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the "table" should stay and the "cache"
> should
> > go
> > > > > > > > >>> considering
> > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one of the primary APIs in Ignite and that
> DDL
> > is
> > > > > > > supported
> > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> -
> > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > >>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > >>> > I see your point. I agree that with the automatic
> updates
> > > we
> > > > > step
> > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last territory.
> > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we support automatic evolution, we can as
> > well
> > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > >>> > creating a cache without schema and inferring it from
> the
> > > > first
> > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> > > > > > > > >>> In
> > > > > > > > >>> > other words, we can have both "schema-first" and
> > > > "schema-last"
> > > > > > > modes.
> > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you think?
> > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > >>> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got your concern now. As it is mostly
> > > > regarding
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>> > > terminology, I am absolutely fine with changing the
> > name
> > > to
> > > > > > > > whatever
> > > > > > > > >>> fits
> > > > > > > > >>> > > the approach best. Dynamic or evolving schema sounds
> > > > great. I
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > >>> make
> > > > > > > > >>> > > corresponding changes to the IEP once we settle on
> the
> > > > name.
> > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в 11:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for your answer!
> > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > My understanding is a little bit different. Yes,
> > schema
> > > > > > > evolution
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > definitely should be possible. But I see a main
> > > > difference
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > "how
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is updated". I treat a common SQL approach
> > > > > > schema-first.
> > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data manipulation operations are clearly
> > separated
> > > > and
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >>> enables
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > interesting capabilities, e.g. preventing untended
> > > schema
> > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data operations, restricting user
> > permissions
> > > to
> > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first means that schema exists in advance
> > and
> > > > all
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>> stored
> > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > is compliant with it - that's exactly what is
> > proposed.
> > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last approach mentioned in [1] also
> assumes
> > > that
> > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is inferred from data. Is not it
> more
> > > > > similar
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing approach?
> > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would like to say, that my main concern so
> far
> > is
> > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > terminology. And I suppose if it confuses me then
> > > others
> > > > > > might
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused as well. My feeling is closer to "dynamic
> or
> > > > > liquid
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
> > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47 GMT+03:00, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an issue with that. Schema-first
> means
> > > that
> > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > >>> exists
> > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance and all the stored data is compliant with
> > it
> > > -
> > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is proposed. There are no restrictions
> prohibiting
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:52 PM Ivan Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > >>> vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit confused with terminology. My
> > > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see part X Semi Structured
> Data).
> > > Can
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
> > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema" approach as a kind of
> > > > "schema-first"?
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <
> > > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the
> > > relation
> > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on
> > top
> > > of
> > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly
> on
> > > the
> > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is
> SQL
> > > API
> > > > > > which
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes, if all the ORM integrations
> use
> > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > internally, then they can easily translate an
> > > Entity
> > > > > > > object
> > > > > > > > >>> into
> > > > > > > > >>> > an
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE statement that lists all the
> > > object's
> > > > > > > fields.
> > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data integration is already based on
> the
> > > > Ignite
> > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > > > > > > > >>> > and
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be improved once the schema-first approach
> is
> > > > > > > supported.
> > > > > > > > >>> That
> > > > > > > > >>> > > would
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of usability issues.
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would revise the Hibernate integration as
> well
> > > > > during
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say if it's used a lot but Spring
> > > Data
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind, I'll loop you in as long as
> > > you've
> > > > > > > started
> > > > > > > > >>> > working
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support for Micornaut Data
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came across some challenges. Just watch this
> > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > > > > > > > >>> > what
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite 3.0.
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 5:11 PM Valentin
> > > Kulichenko
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally speaking, I believe that the
> > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the issue if duplicate fields in
> key
> > > and
> > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> because
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be created for a cache, not for
> an
> > > > > object,
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the schema will define whether
> there
> > > is
> > > > a
> > > > > > > > primary
> > > > > > > > >>> key
> > > > > > > > >>> > or
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which fields are included in case there
> is
> > > one.
> > > > > Any
> > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > > > > >>> > we
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be compliant with this, so it
> becomes
> > > > > fairly
> > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > >>> > work
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a set of records, rather than
> > > > key-value
> > > > > > > pairs.
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the
> > > relation
> > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on
> > top
> > > of
> > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly
> on
> > > the
> > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is
> SQL
> > > API
> > > > > > which
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:08 PM Denis Magda <
> > > > > > > > >>> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would propose adding another point to the
> > > > > > motivations
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> > > > > > > > >>> > > which
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to the ORM frameworks such as
> Spring
> > > > Data,
> > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the storage engine requires to
> > > > > distinguish
> > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > >>> > objects
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones that complicate the usage of
> > Ignite
> > > > with
> > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially if a key object comprises
> several
> > > > > > fields).
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice if the new schema-first
> > > approach
> > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single entity object when it comes to the
> > ORMs.
> > > > > With
> > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > >>> need to
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a key and value. Just want to
> be
> > > sure
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the essential public APIs that would
> > > support
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>> > > single-entity
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:50 PM Valentin
> > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the big changes proposed for
> Ignite
> > > 3.0
> > > > is
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first approach". To add more
> > clarity,
> > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this change:
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a look and let me know if
> there
> > > are
> > > > > any
> > > > > > > > >>> immediate
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions, or objections.
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>]

Thanks, Pavel and Igor.

I like your ideas to have i8 or int8 instead of Integer.
But the naming doesn't address the issue.

I agree internal types should be portable across different systems with and
without unsigned type support.
The only issue here is that unsigned types cover different ranges.

Let's assume we want to introduce a uLong.
It doesn't look like a big deal to add uLong type support at storage level
and fit it to a 8 bytes and then use it in e.g. .Net only.
But how we could support it in e.g. Java?

Let's keep in mind Long range is about (2^-63 .. 2^63) and uLong range is
(0 .. 2^64)
1. The first option is to restrict range to (0 .. 2^63). This allows to use
signed in e.g.
Java with no conversion, but doesn't look like a 'real' unsigned uLong
support. Things go worse when the user will use uByte, as limitation can
make uByte totally unusable.

2. The second one is to map unsigned types to a type of wider type and add
a constraint for negative values. E.g. uLong to BigInteger.
So, we can't use primitive Java type for Long here. However, it is still
possible to store uLong in 8 bytes, but have a special comparator for
unsigned types to avoid unwanted deserialization.

WDYT?






On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org> wrote:

> Agree, let's get rid of "long, short, byte" in the protocol definition.
>
> We can use Rust style, which is concise and unambiguous:
> i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM Igor Sapego <is...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Pavel,
> >
> > I totally support that. Also, if we are aiming for
> > stronger platform-independance,
> > in our schemas we may want to support bit-notation (int32, uint64)? For
> > example
> > "long" can mean a different type on different platforms and it's easy to
> > confuse
> > them (happens often when using ODBC for example).
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Igor
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Igniters,
> > >
> > > I think we should support unsigned data types:
> > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
> > >
> > > Java does not have them, but many other languages do,
> > > and with the growing number of thin clients this is important.
> > >
> > > For example, in current Ignite.NET implementation we store unsigned
> > values
> > > as signed internally,
> > > but this is a huge pain when it comes to metadata, binary objects, etc.
> > > (it is easy to deserialize int as uint when you have a class, but not
> > with
> > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > >
> > > Any objections?
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Denis,
> > > >
> > > > Good point. Both serializers use reflection API.
> > > > However, we will allow users to configure static schema along with
> > > 'strict'
> > > > schema mode, we still need to validate user classes on client nodes
> > > against
> > > > the latest schema in the grid  and reflection API is the only way to
> do
> > > it.
> > > > One can find a few articles on the internet on how to enable
> reflection
> > > in
> > > > GraalVM.
> > > >
> > > > I'll create a task for supporting GraalVM, and maybe someone who is
> > > > familiar with GraalVM will suggest a solution or a proper workaround.
> > Or
> > > > I'll do it a bit later.
> > > > If no workaround is found, we could allow users to write it's own
> > > > serializer, but I don't think it is a good idea to expose any
> internal
> > > > classes to the public.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Andrey, thanks for the update,
> > > > >
> > > > > Does any of the serializers take into consideration the
> > > > > native-image-generation feature of GraalVM?
> > > > > https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > > >
> > > > > With the current binary marshaller, we can't even generate a native
> > > image
> > > > > for the code using our thin client APIs.
> > > > >
> > > > > -
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd like to continue discussion of IEP-54 (Schema-first
> approach).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hope everyone who is interested had a chance to get familiar with
> > the
> > > > > > proposal [1].
> > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to ask questions and share your ideas.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've prepared a prototype of serializer [2] for the data layout
> > > > described
> > > > > > in the proposal.
> > > > > > In prototy, I compared 2 approaches to (de)serialize objects, the
> > > first
> > > > > one
> > > > > > uses java reflection/unsafe API and similar to one we already use
> > in
> > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > and the second one generates serializer for particular user class
> > and
> > > > > uses
> > > > > > Janino library for compilation.
> > > > > > Second one shows better results in benchmarks.
> > > > > > I think we can go with it as default serializer and have
> > > > reflection-based
> > > > > > implementation as a fallback if someone will have issues with the
> > > first
> > > > > > one.
> > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are a number of tasks under the umbrella ticket [3] waiting
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > > > assignee.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > BTW, I'm going to create more tickets for schema manager modes
> > > > > > implementation, but would like to clarify some details.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I thought schemaManager on each node should held:
> > > > > >   1. Local mapping of "schema version" <--> validated local
> > key/value
> > > > > > classes pair.
> > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide schema changes history.
> > > > > > On the client side. Before any key-value API operation we should
> > > > > validate a
> > > > > > schema for a given key-value pair.
> > > > > > If there is no local-mapping exists for a given key-value pair or
> > if
> > > a
> > > > > > cluster wide schema has a more recent version then the key-value
> > pair
> > > > > > should be validated against the latest version and local mapping
> > > should
> > > > > be
> > > > > > updated/actualized.
> > > > > > If an object doesn't fit to the latest schema then it depends on
> > > schema
> > > > > > mode: either fail the operation ('strict' mode) or a new mapping
> > > should
> > > > > be
> > > > > > created and a new schema version should be propagated to the
> > cluster.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On the server side we usually have no key-value classes and we
> > > operate
> > > > > with
> > > > > > tuples.
> > > > > > As schema change history is available and a tuple has schema
> > version,
> > > > > then
> > > > > > it is possible to upgrade any received tuple to the last version
> > > > without
> > > > > > desialization.
> > > > > > Thus we could allow nodes to send key-value pairs of previous
> > > versions
> > > > > (if
> > > > > > they didn't receive a schema update yet) without reverting schema
> > > > changes
> > > > > > made by a node with newer classes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the same?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > [2]
> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Ivan Pavlukhin <
> > vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please do not ignore history. We had a thread [1] with many
> > bright
> > > > > > > ideas. We can resume it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>:
> > > > > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks for explaining.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Agree that we need to have a separate discussion thread for
> the
> > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > "cache" terms substitution. I'll appreciate it if you start
> the
> > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > sharing pointers to any relevant IEPs and reasoning behind
> the
> > > > > > suggested
> > > > > > > > change.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> I guess the wording in the IEP is a little bit confusing.
> All
> > it
> > > > > means
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> that you should not create nested POJOs, but rather inline
> > > fields
> > > > > > into a
> > > > > > > >> single POJO that is mapped to a particular schema. In other
> > > words,
> > > > > > > nested
> > > > > > > >> POJOs are not supported.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Alex, is this correct? Please let me know if I'm missing
> > > > something.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> As for the "cache" term, I agree that it is outdated, but
> I'm
> > > not
> > > > > sure
> > > > > > > >> what we can replace it with. "Table" is tightly associated
> > with
> > > > SQL,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > >> SQL is optional in our case. Do you want to create a
> separate
> > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > >> about this?
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> -Val
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM Denis Magda <
> dmagda@apache.org
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> I've checked the IEP again and have a few questions.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects and collections are not allowed as
> > > > column
> > > > > > > >>> values.
> > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should either be inlined into schema, or
> > stored
> > > as
> > > > > > BLOBs
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL code snippet showing how the
> inlining
> > > of
> > > > > > POJOs
> > > > > > > >>> is
> > > > > > > >>> supposed to work?
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep using the terms "cache" and "table"
> throughout
> > > the
> > > > > IEP.
> > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > >>> it
> > > > > > > >>> the right time to discuss an alternate name that would
> > replace
> > > > > those
> > > > > > > >>> too?
> > > > > > > >>> Personally, the "table" should stay and the "cache" should
> go
> > > > > > > >>> considering
> > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one of the primary APIs in Ignite and that DDL
> is
> > > > > > supported
> > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> -
> > > > > > > >>> Denis
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > >>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> > I see your point. I agree that with the automatic updates
> > we
> > > > step
> > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > >>> > schema-last territory.
> > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we support automatic evolution, we can as
> well
> > > > > support
> > > > > > > >>> > creating a cache without schema and inferring it from the
> > > first
> > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> > > > > > > >>> In
> > > > > > > >>> > other words, we can have both "schema-first" and
> > > "schema-last"
> > > > > > modes.
> > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you think?
> > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > >>> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got your concern now. As it is mostly
> > > regarding
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>> > > terminology, I am absolutely fine with changing the
> name
> > to
> > > > > > > whatever
> > > > > > > >>> fits
> > > > > > > >>> > > the approach best. Dynamic or evolving schema sounds
> > > great. I
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > >>> make
> > > > > > > >>> > > corresponding changes to the IEP once we settle on the
> > > name.
> > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в 11:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <
> > > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for your answer!
> > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > My understanding is a little bit different. Yes,
> schema
> > > > > > evolution
> > > > > > > >>> > > > definitely should be possible. But I see a main
> > > difference
> > > > in
> > > > > > > "how
> > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is updated". I treat a common SQL approach
> > > > > schema-first.
> > > > > > > >>> Schema
> > > > > > > >>> > > > and data manipulation operations are clearly
> separated
> > > and
> > > > it
> > > > > > > >>> enables
> > > > > > > >>> > > > interesting capabilities, e.g. preventing untended
> > schema
> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data operations, restricting user
> permissions
> > to
> > > > > > change
> > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first means that schema exists in advance
> and
> > > all
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>> stored
> > > > > > > >>> > > data
> > > > > > > >>> > > > is compliant with it - that's exactly what is
> proposed.
> > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last approach mentioned in [1] also assumes
> > that
> > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is inferred from data. Is not it more
> > > > similar
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing approach?
> > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would like to say, that my main concern so far
> is
> > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> > > > > > > >>> > > > terminology. And I suppose if it confuses me then
> > others
> > > > > might
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > >>> > > > confused as well. My feeling is closer to "dynamic or
> > > > liquid
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
> > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47 GMT+03:00, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > >>> > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an issue with that. Schema-first means
> > that
> > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > >>> exists
> > > > > > > >>> > > in
> > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance and all the stored data is compliant with
> it
> > -
> > > > > that's
> > > > > > > >>> exactly
> > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> > > > > > > >>> > > > > is proposed. There are no restrictions prohibiting
> > > > changes
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:52 PM Ivan Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > >>> vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit confused with terminology. My
> > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see part X Semi Structured Data).
> > Can
> > > > we
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
> > > > > > > >>> > treat
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema" approach as a kind of
> > > "schema-first"?
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <
> > > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the
> > relation
> > > > > > between
> > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on
> top
> > of
> > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on
> > the
> > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL
> > API
> > > > > which
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes, if all the ORM integrations use
> > > > Ignite
> > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > internally, then they can easily translate an
> > Entity
> > > > > > object
> > > > > > > >>> into
> > > > > > > >>> > an
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE statement that lists all the
> > object's
> > > > > > fields.
> > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data integration is already based on the
> > > Ignite
> > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > > > > > > >>> > and
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be improved once the schema-first approach is
> > > > > > supported.
> > > > > > > >>> That
> > > > > > > >>> > > would
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of usability issues.
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would revise the Hibernate integration as well
> > > > during
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say if it's used a lot but Spring
> > Data
> > > is
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind, I'll loop you in as long as
> > you've
> > > > > > started
> > > > > > > >>> > working
> > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support for Micornaut Data
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came across some challenges. Just watch this
> > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > > > > > > >>> > what
> > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite 3.0.
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 5:11 PM Valentin
> > Kulichenko
> > > <
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally speaking, I believe that the
> > schema-first
> > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > >>> > > natively
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the issue if duplicate fields in key
> > and
> > > > > value
> > > > > > > >>> objects,
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> because
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be created for a cache, not for an
> > > > object,
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the schema will define whether there
> > is
> > > a
> > > > > > > primary
> > > > > > > >>> key
> > > > > > > >>> > or
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which fields are included in case there is
> > one.
> > > > Any
> > > > > > API
> > > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > > > >>> > we
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be compliant with this, so it becomes
> > > > fairly
> > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > >>> > work
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a set of records, rather than
> > > key-value
> > > > > > pairs.
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the
> > relation
> > > > > > between
> > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on
> top
> > of
> > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on
> > the
> > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL
> > API
> > > > > which
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:08 PM Denis Magda <
> > > > > > > >>> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would propose adding another point to the
> > > > > motivations
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> > > > > > > >>> > > which
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to the ORM frameworks such as Spring
> > > Data,
> > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the storage engine requires to
> > > > distinguish
> > > > > > key
> > > > > > > >>> > objects
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones that complicate the usage of
> Ignite
> > > with
> > > > > > those
> > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially if a key object comprises several
> > > > > fields).
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > > > >>> > > this
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice if the new schema-first
> > approach
> > > > > allows
> > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > >>> > > work
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single entity object when it comes to the
> ORMs.
> > > > With
> > > > > no
> > > > > > > >>> need to
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a key and value. Just want to be
> > sure
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the essential public APIs that would
> > support
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >>> > > single-entity
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you think?
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:50 PM Valentin
> > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the big changes proposed for Ignite
> > 3.0
> > > is
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first approach". To add more
> clarity,
> > > > I've
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this change:
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a look and let me know if there
> > are
> > > > any
> > > > > > > >>> immediate
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions, or objections.
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


-- 
Best regards,
Andrey V. Mashenkov

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>]

Agree, let's get rid of "long, short, byte" in the protocol definition.

We can use Rust style, which is concise and unambiguous:
i8, u8, i16, u16, etc

On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM Igor Sapego <is...@apache.org> wrote:

> Pavel,
>
> I totally support that. Also, if we are aiming for
> stronger platform-independance,
> in our schemas we may want to support bit-notation (int32, uint64)? For
> example
> "long" can mean a different type on different platforms and it's easy to
> confuse
> them (happens often when using ODBC for example).
>
> Best Regards,
> Igor
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Igniters,
> >
> > I think we should support unsigned data types:
> > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
> >
> > Java does not have them, but many other languages do,
> > and with the growing number of thin clients this is important.
> >
> > For example, in current Ignite.NET implementation we store unsigned
> values
> > as signed internally,
> > but this is a huge pain when it comes to metadata, binary objects, etc.
> > (it is easy to deserialize int as uint when you have a class, but not
> with
> > BinaryObject.GetField)
> >
> > Any objections?
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Denis,
> > >
> > > Good point. Both serializers use reflection API.
> > > However, we will allow users to configure static schema along with
> > 'strict'
> > > schema mode, we still need to validate user classes on client nodes
> > against
> > > the latest schema in the grid  and reflection API is the only way to do
> > it.
> > > One can find a few articles on the internet on how to enable reflection
> > in
> > > GraalVM.
> > >
> > > I'll create a task for supporting GraalVM, and maybe someone who is
> > > familiar with GraalVM will suggest a solution or a proper workaround.
> Or
> > > I'll do it a bit later.
> > > If no workaround is found, we could allow users to write it's own
> > > serializer, but I don't think it is a good idea to expose any internal
> > > classes to the public.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Andrey, thanks for the update,
> > > >
> > > > Does any of the serializers take into consideration the
> > > > native-image-generation feature of GraalVM?
> > > > https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > >
> > > > With the current binary marshaller, we can't even generate a native
> > image
> > > > for the code using our thin client APIs.
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > > Denis
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like to continue discussion of IEP-54 (Schema-first approach).
> > > > >
> > > > > Hope everyone who is interested had a chance to get familiar with
> the
> > > > > proposal [1].
> > > > > Please, do not hesitate to ask questions and share your ideas.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've prepared a prototype of serializer [2] for the data layout
> > > described
> > > > > in the proposal.
> > > > > In prototy, I compared 2 approaches to (de)serialize objects, the
> > first
> > > > one
> > > > > uses java reflection/unsafe API and similar to one we already use
> in
> > > > Ignite
> > > > > and the second one generates serializer for particular user class
> and
> > > > uses
> > > > > Janino library for compilation.
> > > > > Second one shows better results in benchmarks.
> > > > > I think we can go with it as default serializer and have
> > > reflection-based
> > > > > implementation as a fallback if someone will have issues with the
> > first
> > > > > one.
> > > > > WDYT?
> > > > >
> > > > > There are a number of tasks under the umbrella ticket [3] waiting
> for
> > > the
> > > > > assignee.
> > > > >
> > > > > BTW, I'm going to create more tickets for schema manager modes
> > > > > implementation, but would like to clarify some details.
> > > > >
> > > > > I thought schemaManager on each node should held:
> > > > >   1. Local mapping of "schema version" <--> validated local
> key/value
> > > > > classes pair.
> > > > >   2. Cluster-wide schema changes history.
> > > > > On the client side. Before any key-value API operation we should
> > > > validate a
> > > > > schema for a given key-value pair.
> > > > > If there is no local-mapping exists for a given key-value pair or
> if
> > a
> > > > > cluster wide schema has a more recent version then the key-value
> pair
> > > > > should be validated against the latest version and local mapping
> > should
> > > > be
> > > > > updated/actualized.
> > > > > If an object doesn't fit to the latest schema then it depends on
> > schema
> > > > > mode: either fail the operation ('strict' mode) or a new mapping
> > should
> > > > be
> > > > > created and a new schema version should be propagated to the
> cluster.
> > > > >
> > > > > On the server side we usually have no key-value classes and we
> > operate
> > > > with
> > > > > tuples.
> > > > > As schema change history is available and a tuple has schema
> version,
> > > > then
> > > > > it is possible to upgrade any received tuple to the last version
> > > without
> > > > > desialization.
> > > > > Thus we could allow nodes to send key-value pairs of previous
> > versions
> > > > (if
> > > > > they didn't receive a schema update yet) without reverting schema
> > > changes
> > > > > made by a node with newer classes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the same?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > [2]
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Ivan Pavlukhin <
> vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please do not ignore history. We had a thread [1] with many
> bright
> > > > > > ideas. We can resume it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>:
> > > > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks for explaining.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Agree that we need to have a separate discussion thread for the
> > > > "table"
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > "cache" terms substitution. I'll appreciate it if you start the
> > > > thread
> > > > > > > sharing pointers to any relevant IEPs and reasoning behind the
> > > > > suggested
> > > > > > > change.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I guess the wording in the IEP is a little bit confusing. All
> it
> > > > means
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> that you should not create nested POJOs, but rather inline
> > fields
> > > > > into a
> > > > > > >> single POJO that is mapped to a particular schema. In other
> > words,
> > > > > > nested
> > > > > > >> POJOs are not supported.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Alex, is this correct? Please let me know if I'm missing
> > > something.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> As for the "cache" term, I agree that it is outdated, but I'm
> > not
> > > > sure
> > > > > > >> what we can replace it with. "Table" is tightly associated
> with
> > > SQL,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > >> SQL is optional in our case. Do you want to create a separate
> > > > > discussion
> > > > > > >> about this?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> -Val
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> Val,
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> I've checked the IEP again and have a few questions.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects and collections are not allowed as
> > > column
> > > > > > >>> values.
> > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should either be inlined into schema, or
> stored
> > as
> > > > > BLOBs
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL code snippet showing how the inlining
> > of
> > > > > POJOs
> > > > > > >>> is
> > > > > > >>> supposed to work?
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Also, we keep using the terms "cache" and "table" throughout
> > the
> > > > IEP.
> > > > > > Is
> > > > > > >>> it
> > > > > > >>> the right time to discuss an alternate name that would
> replace
> > > > those
> > > > > > >>> too?
> > > > > > >>> Personally, the "table" should stay and the "cache" should go
> > > > > > >>> considering
> > > > > > >>> that SQL is one of the primary APIs in Ignite and that DDL is
> > > > > supported
> > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> -
> > > > > > >>> Denis
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > > >>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >>> > I see your point. I agree that with the automatic updates
> we
> > > step
> > > > > > into
> > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > >>> > schema-last territory.
> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we support automatic evolution, we can as well
> > > > support
> > > > > > >>> > creating a cache without schema and inferring it from the
> > first
> > > > > > >>> > insert.
> > > > > > >>> In
> > > > > > >>> > other words, we can have both "schema-first" and
> > "schema-last"
> > > > > modes.
> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you think?
> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >>> > -Val
> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > >>> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got your concern now. As it is mostly
> > regarding
> > > > the
> > > > > > >>> > > terminology, I am absolutely fine with changing the name
> to
> > > > > > whatever
> > > > > > >>> fits
> > > > > > >>> > > the approach best. Dynamic or evolving schema sounds
> > great. I
> > > > > will
> > > > > > >>> make
> > > > > > >>> > > corresponding changes to the IEP once we settle on the
> > name.
> > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в 11:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <
> > > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for your answer!
> > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >>> > > > My understanding is a little bit different. Yes, schema
> > > > > evolution
> > > > > > >>> > > > definitely should be possible. But I see a main
> > difference
> > > in
> > > > > > "how
> > > > > > >>> > > > schema is updated". I treat a common SQL approach
> > > > schema-first.
> > > > > > >>> Schema
> > > > > > >>> > > > and data manipulation operations are clearly separated
> > and
> > > it
> > > > > > >>> enables
> > > > > > >>> > > > interesting capabilities, e.g. preventing untended
> schema
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > >>> > > > by
> > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data operations, restricting user permissions
> to
> > > > > change
> > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first means that schema exists in advance and
> > all
> > > > the
> > > > > > >>> stored
> > > > > > >>> > > data
> > > > > > >>> > > > is compliant with it - that's exactly what is proposed.
> > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last approach mentioned in [1] also assumes
> that
> > > > > schema
> > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is inferred from data. Is not it more
> > > similar
> > > > to
> > > > > > >>> > > > the
> > > > > > >>> > > > proposing approach?
> > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >>> > > > And I would like to say, that my main concern so far is
> > > > mostly
> > > > > > >>> > > > about
> > > > > > >>> > > > terminology. And I suppose if it confuses me then
> others
> > > > might
> > > > > be
> > > > > > >>> > > > confused as well. My feeling is closer to "dynamic or
> > > liquid
> > > > or
> > > > > > >>> > > > may
> > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
> > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47 GMT+03:00, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > > >>> > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an issue with that. Schema-first means
> that
> > > > > schema
> > > > > > >>> exists
> > > > > > >>> > > in
> > > > > > >>> > > > > advance and all the stored data is compliant with it
> -
> > > > that's
> > > > > > >>> exactly
> > > > > > >>> > > > what
> > > > > > >>> > > > > is proposed. There are no restrictions prohibiting
> > > changes
> > > > to
> > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:52 PM Ivan Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > >>> vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit confused with terminology. My
> > > > > understanding
> > > > > > >>> > conforms
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see part X Semi Structured Data).
> Can
> > > we
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
> > > > > > >>> > treat
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema" approach as a kind of
> > "schema-first"?
> > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <
> > > dmagda@apache.org
> > > > >:
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the
> relation
> > > > > between
> > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top
> of
> > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on
> the
> > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL
> API
> > > > which
> > > > > we
> > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes, if all the ORM integrations use
> > > Ignite
> > > > > SQL
> > > > > > >>> APIs
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > internally, then they can easily translate an
> Entity
> > > > > object
> > > > > > >>> into
> > > > > > >>> > an
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE statement that lists all the
> object's
> > > > > fields.
> > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data integration is already based on the
> > Ignite
> > > > SQL
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > > > > > >>> > and
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be improved once the schema-first approach is
> > > > > supported.
> > > > > > >>> That
> > > > > > >>> > > would
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of usability issues.
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would revise the Hibernate integration as well
> > > during
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >>> Ignite
> > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say if it's used a lot but Spring
> Data
> > is
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> > > > > > >>> > > > traction
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind, I'll loop you in as long as
> you've
> > > > > started
> > > > > > >>> > working
> > > > > > >>> > > > on
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support for Micornaut Data
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came across some challenges. Just watch this
> > > discussion.
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > > > > > >>> > what
> > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite 3.0.
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 5:11 PM Valentin
> Kulichenko
> > <
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally speaking, I believe that the
> schema-first
> > > > > > approach
> > > > > > >>> > > natively
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the issue if duplicate fields in key
> and
> > > > value
> > > > > > >>> objects,
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> because
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be created for a cache, not for an
> > > object,
> > > > as
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > >>> > > happens
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the schema will define whether there
> is
> > a
> > > > > > primary
> > > > > > >>> key
> > > > > > >>> > or
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which fields are included in case there is
> one.
> > > Any
> > > > > API
> > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > > >>> > we
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be compliant with this, so it becomes
> > > fairly
> > > > > easy
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > >>> > work
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a set of records, rather than
> > key-value
> > > > > pairs.
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the
> relation
> > > > > between
> > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top
> of
> > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on
> the
> > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL
> API
> > > > which
> > > > > we
> > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:08 PM Denis Magda <
> > > > > > >>> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would propose adding another point to the
> > > > motivations
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> > > > > > >>> > > which
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to the ORM frameworks such as Spring
> > Data,
> > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the storage engine requires to
> > > distinguish
> > > > > key
> > > > > > >>> > objects
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones that complicate the usage of Ignite
> > with
> > > > > those
> > > > > > >>> ORM
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially if a key object comprises several
> > > > fields).
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > > >>> > > this
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice if the new schema-first
> approach
> > > > allows
> > > > > > us
> > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > >>> > > work
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single entity object when it comes to the ORMs.
> > > With
> > > > no
> > > > > > >>> need to
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a key and value. Just want to be
> sure
> > > > that
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the essential public APIs that would
> support
> > > the
> > > > > > >>> > > single-entity
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you think?
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:50 PM Valentin
> > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the big changes proposed for Ignite
> 3.0
> > is
> > > > the
> > > > > > >>> > so-called
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first approach". To add more clarity,
> > > I've
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> > > > > > >>> > > > writing
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this change:
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a look and let me know if there
> are
> > > any
> > > > > > >>> immediate
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions, or objections.
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >>> > > > --
> > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >
> >
>

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Igor Sapego <is...@apache.org>]

Pavel,

I totally support that. Also, if we are aiming for
stronger platform-independance,
in our schemas we may want to support bit-notation (int32, uint64)? For
example
"long" can mean a different type on different platforms and it's easy to
confuse
them (happens often when using ODBC for example).

Best Regards,
Igor


On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org> wrote:

> Igniters,
>
> I think we should support unsigned data types:
> uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
>
> Java does not have them, but many other languages do,
> and with the growing number of thin clients this is important.
>
> For example, in current Ignite.NET implementation we store unsigned values
> as signed internally,
> but this is a huge pain when it comes to metadata, binary objects, etc.
> (it is easy to deserialize int as uint when you have a class, but not with
> BinaryObject.GetField)
>
> Any objections?
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Denis,
> >
> > Good point. Both serializers use reflection API.
> > However, we will allow users to configure static schema along with
> 'strict'
> > schema mode, we still need to validate user classes on client nodes
> against
> > the latest schema in the grid  and reflection API is the only way to do
> it.
> > One can find a few articles on the internet on how to enable reflection
> in
> > GraalVM.
> >
> > I'll create a task for supporting GraalVM, and maybe someone who is
> > familiar with GraalVM will suggest a solution or a proper workaround. Or
> > I'll do it a bit later.
> > If no workaround is found, we could allow users to write it's own
> > serializer, but I don't think it is a good idea to expose any internal
> > classes to the public.
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Andrey, thanks for the update,
> > >
> > > Does any of the serializers take into consideration the
> > > native-image-generation feature of GraalVM?
> > > https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > >
> > > With the current binary marshaller, we can't even generate a native
> image
> > > for the code using our thin client APIs.
> > >
> > > -
> > > Denis
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to continue discussion of IEP-54 (Schema-first approach).
> > > >
> > > > Hope everyone who is interested had a chance to get familiar with the
> > > > proposal [1].
> > > > Please, do not hesitate to ask questions and share your ideas.
> > > >
> > > > I've prepared a prototype of serializer [2] for the data layout
> > described
> > > > in the proposal.
> > > > In prototy, I compared 2 approaches to (de)serialize objects, the
> first
> > > one
> > > > uses java reflection/unsafe API and similar to one we already use in
> > > Ignite
> > > > and the second one generates serializer for particular user class and
> > > uses
> > > > Janino library for compilation.
> > > > Second one shows better results in benchmarks.
> > > > I think we can go with it as default serializer and have
> > reflection-based
> > > > implementation as a fallback if someone will have issues with the
> first
> > > > one.
> > > > WDYT?
> > > >
> > > > There are a number of tasks under the umbrella ticket [3] waiting for
> > the
> > > > assignee.
> > > >
> > > > BTW, I'm going to create more tickets for schema manager modes
> > > > implementation, but would like to clarify some details.
> > > >
> > > > I thought schemaManager on each node should held:
> > > >   1. Local mapping of "schema version" <--> validated local key/value
> > > > classes pair.
> > > >   2. Cluster-wide schema changes history.
> > > > On the client side. Before any key-value API operation we should
> > > validate a
> > > > schema for a given key-value pair.
> > > > If there is no local-mapping exists for a given key-value pair or if
> a
> > > > cluster wide schema has a more recent version then the key-value pair
> > > > should be validated against the latest version and local mapping
> should
> > > be
> > > > updated/actualized.
> > > > If an object doesn't fit to the latest schema then it depends on
> schema
> > > > mode: either fail the operation ('strict' mode) or a new mapping
> should
> > > be
> > > > created and a new schema version should be propagated to the cluster.
> > > >
> > > > On the server side we usually have no key-value classes and we
> operate
> > > with
> > > > tuples.
> > > > As schema change history is available and a tuple has schema version,
> > > then
> > > > it is possible to upgrade any received tuple to the last version
> > without
> > > > desialization.
> > > > Thus we could allow nodes to send key-value pairs of previous
> versions
> > > (if
> > > > they didn't receive a schema update yet) without reverting schema
> > changes
> > > > made by a node with newer classes.
> > > >
> > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the same?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > [2]
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Folks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Please do not ignore history. We had a thread [1] with many bright
> > > > > ideas. We can resume it.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > >
> > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>:
> > > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks for explaining.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Agree that we need to have a separate discussion thread for the
> > > "table"
> > > > > and
> > > > > > "cache" terms substitution. I'll appreciate it if you start the
> > > thread
> > > > > > sharing pointers to any relevant IEPs and reasoning behind the
> > > > suggested
> > > > > > change.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I guess the wording in the IEP is a little bit confusing. All it
> > > means
> > > > > is
> > > > > >> that you should not create nested POJOs, but rather inline
> fields
> > > > into a
> > > > > >> single POJO that is mapped to a particular schema. In other
> words,
> > > > > nested
> > > > > >> POJOs are not supported.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Alex, is this correct? Please let me know if I'm missing
> > something.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> As for the "cache" term, I agree that it is outdated, but I'm
> not
> > > sure
> > > > > >> what we can replace it with. "Table" is tightly associated with
> > SQL,
> > > > but
> > > > > >> SQL is optional in our case. Do you want to create a separate
> > > > discussion
> > > > > >> about this?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> -Val
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Val,
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> I've checked the IEP again and have a few questions.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects and collections are not allowed as
> > column
> > > > > >>> values.
> > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should either be inlined into schema, or stored
> as
> > > > BLOBs
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL code snippet showing how the inlining
> of
> > > > POJOs
> > > > > >>> is
> > > > > >>> supposed to work?
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Also, we keep using the terms "cache" and "table" throughout
> the
> > > IEP.
> > > > > Is
> > > > > >>> it
> > > > > >>> the right time to discuss an alternate name that would replace
> > > those
> > > > > >>> too?
> > > > > >>> Personally, the "table" should stay and the "cache" should go
> > > > > >>> considering
> > > > > >>> that SQL is one of the primary APIs in Ignite and that DDL is
> > > > supported
> > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> -
> > > > > >>> Denis
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > >>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >>> > I see your point. I agree that with the automatic updates we
> > step
> > > > > into
> > > > > >>> the
> > > > > >>> > schema-last territory.
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >>> > Actually, if we support automatic evolution, we can as well
> > > support
> > > > > >>> > creating a cache without schema and inferring it from the
> first
> > > > > >>> > insert.
> > > > > >>> In
> > > > > >>> > other words, we can have both "schema-first" and
> "schema-last"
> > > > modes.
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you think?
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >>> > -Val
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > >>> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got your concern now. As it is mostly
> regarding
> > > the
> > > > > >>> > > terminology, I am absolutely fine with changing the name to
> > > > > whatever
> > > > > >>> fits
> > > > > >>> > > the approach best. Dynamic or evolving schema sounds
> great. I
> > > > will
> > > > > >>> make
> > > > > >>> > > corresponding changes to the IEP once we settle on the
> name.
> > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в 11:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <
> > > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > > >:
> > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for your answer!
> > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >>> > > > My understanding is a little bit different. Yes, schema
> > > > evolution
> > > > > >>> > > > definitely should be possible. But I see a main
> difference
> > in
> > > > > "how
> > > > > >>> > > > schema is updated". I treat a common SQL approach
> > > schema-first.
> > > > > >>> Schema
> > > > > >>> > > > and data manipulation operations are clearly separated
> and
> > it
> > > > > >>> enables
> > > > > >>> > > > interesting capabilities, e.g. preventing untended schema
> > > > changes
> > > > > >>> > > > by
> > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data operations, restricting user permissions to
> > > > change
> > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first means that schema exists in advance and
> all
> > > the
> > > > > >>> stored
> > > > > >>> > > data
> > > > > >>> > > > is compliant with it - that's exactly what is proposed.
> > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last approach mentioned in [1] also assumes that
> > > > schema
> > > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is inferred from data. Is not it more
> > similar
> > > to
> > > > > >>> > > > the
> > > > > >>> > > > proposing approach?
> > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >>> > > > And I would like to say, that my main concern so far is
> > > mostly
> > > > > >>> > > > about
> > > > > >>> > > > terminology. And I suppose if it confuses me then others
> > > might
> > > > be
> > > > > >>> > > > confused as well. My feeling is closer to "dynamic or
> > liquid
> > > or
> > > > > >>> > > > may
> > > > > >>> be
> > > > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
> > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47 GMT+03:00, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > >>> > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an issue with that. Schema-first means that
> > > > schema
> > > > > >>> exists
> > > > > >>> > > in
> > > > > >>> > > > > advance and all the stored data is compliant with it -
> > > that's
> > > > > >>> exactly
> > > > > >>> > > > what
> > > > > >>> > > > > is proposed. There are no restrictions prohibiting
> > changes
> > > to
> > > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:52 PM Ivan Pavlukhin <
> > > > > >>> vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit confused with terminology. My
> > > > understanding
> > > > > >>> > conforms
> > > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see part X Semi Structured Data). Can
> > we
> > > > > >>> > > > >> really
> > > > > >>> > treat
> > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema" approach as a kind of
> "schema-first"?
> > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > >>>
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <
> > dmagda@apache.org
> > > >:
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the relation
> > > > between
> > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of
> > > > Ignite
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the
> > > Ignite
> > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API
> > > which
> > > > we
> > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes, if all the ORM integrations use
> > Ignite
> > > > SQL
> > > > > >>> APIs
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > internally, then they can easily translate an Entity
> > > > object
> > > > > >>> into
> > > > > >>> > an
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE statement that lists all the object's
> > > > fields.
> > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data integration is already based on the
> Ignite
> > > SQL
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > > > > >>> > and
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be improved once the schema-first approach is
> > > > supported.
> > > > > >>> That
> > > > > >>> > > would
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of usability issues.
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would revise the Hibernate integration as well
> > during
> > > > the
> > > > > >>> Ignite
> > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say if it's used a lot but Spring Data
> is
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> > > > > >>> > > > traction
> > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind, I'll loop you in as long as you've
> > > > started
> > > > > >>> > working
> > > > > >>> > > > on
> > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support for Micornaut Data
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > > > >>> >
> > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > came across some challenges. Just watch this
> > discussion.
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > > > > >>> > what
> > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite 3.0.
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 5:11 PM Valentin Kulichenko
> <
> > > > > >>> > > > >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally speaking, I believe that the schema-first
> > > > > approach
> > > > > >>> > > natively
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the issue if duplicate fields in key and
> > > value
> > > > > >>> objects,
> > > > > >>> > > > >> because
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be created for a cache, not for an
> > object,
> > > as
> > > > > it
> > > > > >>> > > happens
> > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the schema will define whether there is
> a
> > > > > primary
> > > > > >>> key
> > > > > >>> > or
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which fields are included in case there is one.
> > Any
> > > > API
> > > > > >>> that
> > > > > >>> > we
> > > > > >>> > > > >> would
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be compliant with this, so it becomes
> > fairly
> > > > easy
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > > > > >>> > work
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a set of records, rather than
> key-value
> > > > pairs.
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the relation
> > > > between
> > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of
> > > > Ignite
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the
> > > Ignite
> > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API
> > > which
> > > > we
> > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:08 PM Denis Magda <
> > > > > >>> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would propose adding another point to the
> > > motivations
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> > > > > >>> > > which
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to the ORM frameworks such as Spring
> Data,
> > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the storage engine requires to
> > distinguish
> > > > key
> > > > > >>> > objects
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones that complicate the usage of Ignite
> with
> > > > those
> > > > > >>> ORM
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially if a key object comprises several
> > > fields).
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> > > > > >>> on
> > > > > >>> > > this
> > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice if the new schema-first approach
> > > allows
> > > > > us
> > > > > >>> to
> > > > > >>> > > work
> > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single entity object when it comes to the ORMs.
> > With
> > > no
> > > > > >>> need to
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a key and value. Just want to be sure
> > > that
> > > > > the
> > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the essential public APIs that would support
> > the
> > > > > >>> > > single-entity
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you think?
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:50 PM Valentin
> > Kulichenko <
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the big changes proposed for Ignite 3.0
> is
> > > the
> > > > > >>> > so-called
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first approach". To add more clarity,
> > I've
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> > > > > >>> > > > writing
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this change:
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a look and let me know if there are
> > any
> > > > > >>> immediate
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions, or objections.
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >>> > > > --
> > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >
>

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Pavel Tupitsyn <pt...@apache.org>]

Igniters,

I think we should support unsigned data types:
uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong

Java does not have them, but many other languages do,
and with the growing number of thin clients this is important.

For example, in current Ignite.NET implementation we store unsigned values
as signed internally,
but this is a huge pain when it comes to metadata, binary objects, etc.
(it is easy to deserialize int as uint when you have a class, but not with
BinaryObject.GetField)

Any objections?

On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com> wrote:

> Denis,
>
> Good point. Both serializers use reflection API.
> However, we will allow users to configure static schema along with 'strict'
> schema mode, we still need to validate user classes on client nodes against
> the latest schema in the grid  and reflection API is the only way to do it.
> One can find a few articles on the internet on how to enable reflection in
> GraalVM.
>
> I'll create a task for supporting GraalVM, and maybe someone who is
> familiar with GraalVM will suggest a solution or a proper workaround. Or
> I'll do it a bit later.
> If no workaround is found, we could allow users to write it's own
> serializer, but I don't think it is a good idea to expose any internal
> classes to the public.
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Andrey, thanks for the update,
> >
> > Does any of the serializers take into consideration the
> > native-image-generation feature of GraalVM?
> > https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> >
> > With the current binary marshaller, we can't even generate a native image
> > for the code using our thin client APIs.
> >
> > -
> > Denis
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Igniters,
> > >
> > > I'd like to continue discussion of IEP-54 (Schema-first approach).
> > >
> > > Hope everyone who is interested had a chance to get familiar with the
> > > proposal [1].
> > > Please, do not hesitate to ask questions and share your ideas.
> > >
> > > I've prepared a prototype of serializer [2] for the data layout
> described
> > > in the proposal.
> > > In prototy, I compared 2 approaches to (de)serialize objects, the first
> > one
> > > uses java reflection/unsafe API and similar to one we already use in
> > Ignite
> > > and the second one generates serializer for particular user class and
> > uses
> > > Janino library for compilation.
> > > Second one shows better results in benchmarks.
> > > I think we can go with it as default serializer and have
> reflection-based
> > > implementation as a fallback if someone will have issues with the first
> > > one.
> > > WDYT?
> > >
> > > There are a number of tasks under the umbrella ticket [3] waiting for
> the
> > > assignee.
> > >
> > > BTW, I'm going to create more tickets for schema manager modes
> > > implementation, but would like to clarify some details.
> > >
> > > I thought schemaManager on each node should held:
> > >   1. Local mapping of "schema version" <--> validated local key/value
> > > classes pair.
> > >   2. Cluster-wide schema changes history.
> > > On the client side. Before any key-value API operation we should
> > validate a
> > > schema for a given key-value pair.
> > > If there is no local-mapping exists for a given key-value pair or if a
> > > cluster wide schema has a more recent version then the key-value pair
> > > should be validated against the latest version and local mapping should
> > be
> > > updated/actualized.
> > > If an object doesn't fit to the latest schema then it depends on schema
> > > mode: either fail the operation ('strict' mode) or a new mapping should
> > be
> > > created and a new schema version should be propagated to the cluster.
> > >
> > > On the server side we usually have no key-value classes and we operate
> > with
> > > tuples.
> > > As schema change history is available and a tuple has schema version,
> > then
> > > it is possible to upgrade any received tuple to the last version
> without
> > > desialization.
> > > Thus we could allow nodes to send key-value pairs of previous versions
> > (if
> > > they didn't receive a schema update yet) without reverting schema
> changes
> > > made by a node with newer classes.
> > >
> > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the same?
> > >
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Folks,
> > > >
> > > > Please do not ignore history. We had a thread [1] with many bright
> > > > ideas. We can resume it.
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > >
> > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>:
> > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks for explaining.
> > > > >
> > > > > Agree that we need to have a separate discussion thread for the
> > "table"
> > > > and
> > > > > "cache" terms substitution. I'll appreciate it if you start the
> > thread
> > > > > sharing pointers to any relevant IEPs and reasoning behind the
> > > suggested
> > > > > change.
> > > > >
> > > > > -
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I guess the wording in the IEP is a little bit confusing. All it
> > means
> > > > is
> > > > >> that you should not create nested POJOs, but rather inline fields
> > > into a
> > > > >> single POJO that is mapped to a particular schema. In other words,
> > > > nested
> > > > >> POJOs are not supported.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Alex, is this correct? Please let me know if I'm missing
> something.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> As for the "cache" term, I agree that it is outdated, but I'm not
> > sure
> > > > >> what we can replace it with. "Table" is tightly associated with
> SQL,
> > > but
> > > > >> SQL is optional in our case. Do you want to create a separate
> > > discussion
> > > > >> about this?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> -Val
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Val,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I've checked the IEP again and have a few questions.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects and collections are not allowed as
> column
> > > > >>> values.
> > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should either be inlined into schema, or stored as
> > > BLOBs
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL code snippet showing how the inlining of
> > > POJOs
> > > > >>> is
> > > > >>> supposed to work?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Also, we keep using the terms "cache" and "table" throughout the
> > IEP.
> > > > Is
> > > > >>> it
> > > > >>> the right time to discuss an alternate name that would replace
> > those
> > > > >>> too?
> > > > >>> Personally, the "table" should stay and the "cache" should go
> > > > >>> considering
> > > > >>> that SQL is one of the primary APIs in Ignite and that DDL is
> > > supported
> > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> -
> > > > >>> Denis
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > >>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > I see your point. I agree that with the automatic updates we
> step
> > > > into
> > > > >>> the
> > > > >>> > schema-last territory.
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > Actually, if we support automatic evolution, we can as well
> > support
> > > > >>> > creating a cache without schema and inferring it from the first
> > > > >>> > insert.
> > > > >>> In
> > > > >>> > other words, we can have both "schema-first" and "schema-last"
> > > modes.
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you think?
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > -Val
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > >>> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > > >>> > >
> > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got your concern now. As it is mostly regarding
> > the
> > > > >>> > > terminology, I am absolutely fine with changing the name to
> > > > whatever
> > > > >>> fits
> > > > >>> > > the approach best. Dynamic or evolving schema sounds great. I
> > > will
> > > > >>> make
> > > > >>> > > corresponding changes to the IEP once we settle on the name.
> > > > >>> > >
> > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в 11:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <
> > vololo100@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > > > >>> > >
> > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >>> > > > Thank you for your answer!
> > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >>> > > > My understanding is a little bit different. Yes, schema
> > > evolution
> > > > >>> > > > definitely should be possible. But I see a main difference
> in
> > > > "how
> > > > >>> > > > schema is updated". I treat a common SQL approach
> > schema-first.
> > > > >>> Schema
> > > > >>> > > > and data manipulation operations are clearly separated and
> it
> > > > >>> enables
> > > > >>> > > > interesting capabilities, e.g. preventing untended schema
> > > changes
> > > > >>> > > > by
> > > > >>> > > > mistaken data operations, restricting user permissions to
> > > change
> > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first means that schema exists in advance and all
> > the
> > > > >>> stored
> > > > >>> > > data
> > > > >>> > > > is compliant with it - that's exactly what is proposed.
> > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >>> > > > A schema-last approach mentioned in [1] also assumes that
> > > schema
> > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is inferred from data. Is not it more
> similar
> > to
> > > > >>> > > > the
> > > > >>> > > > proposing approach?
> > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >>> > > > And I would like to say, that my main concern so far is
> > mostly
> > > > >>> > > > about
> > > > >>> > > > terminology. And I suppose if it confuses me then others
> > might
> > > be
> > > > >>> > > > confused as well. My feeling is closer to "dynamic or
> liquid
> > or
> > > > >>> > > > may
> > > > >>> be
> > > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
> > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >>> >
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47 GMT+03:00, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > >>> > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an issue with that. Schema-first means that
> > > schema
> > > > >>> exists
> > > > >>> > > in
> > > > >>> > > > > advance and all the stored data is compliant with it -
> > that's
> > > > >>> exactly
> > > > >>> > > > what
> > > > >>> > > > > is proposed. There are no restrictions prohibiting
> changes
> > to
> > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:52 PM Ivan Pavlukhin <
> > > > >>> vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit confused with terminology. My
> > > understanding
> > > > >>> > conforms
> > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see part X Semi Structured Data). Can
> we
> > > > >>> > > > >> really
> > > > >>> > treat
> > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema" approach as a kind of "schema-first"?
> > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >>> > >
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <
> dmagda@apache.org
> > >:
> > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the relation
> > > between
> > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of
> > > Ignite
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the
> > Ignite
> > > > >>> side to
> > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API
> > which
> > > we
> > > > >>> > already
> > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes, if all the ORM integrations use
> Ignite
> > > SQL
> > > > >>> APIs
> > > > >>> > > > >> > internally, then they can easily translate an Entity
> > > object
> > > > >>> into
> > > > >>> > an
> > > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE statement that lists all the object's
> > > fields.
> > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data integration is already based on the Ignite
> > SQL
> > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > > > >>> > and
> > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > > > >>> > > > >> > to be improved once the schema-first approach is
> > > supported.
> > > > >>> That
> > > > >>> > > would
> > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of usability issues.
> > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> > I would revise the Hibernate integration as well
> during
> > > the
> > > > >>> Ignite
> > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say if it's used a lot but Spring Data is
> > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> > > > >>> > > > traction
> > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind, I'll loop you in as long as you've
> > > started
> > > > >>> > working
> > > > >>> > > > on
> > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support for Micornaut Data
> > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > > >>> >
> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > >>> > > > >> > came across some challenges. Just watch this
> discussion.
> > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > > > >>> > what
> > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite 3.0.
> > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 5:11 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > >>> > > > >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally speaking, I believe that the schema-first
> > > > approach
> > > > >>> > > natively
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the issue if duplicate fields in key and
> > value
> > > > >>> objects,
> > > > >>> > > > >> because
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be created for a cache, not for an
> object,
> > as
> > > > it
> > > > >>> > > happens
> > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the schema will define whether there is a
> > > > primary
> > > > >>> key
> > > > >>> > or
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which fields are included in case there is one.
> Any
> > > API
> > > > >>> that
> > > > >>> > we
> > > > >>> > > > >> would
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be compliant with this, so it becomes
> fairly
> > > easy
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > > > >>> > work
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a set of records, rather than key-value
> > > pairs.
> > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the relation
> > > between
> > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of
> > > Ignite
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the
> > Ignite
> > > > >>> side to
> > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API
> > which
> > > we
> > > > >>> > already
> > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:08 PM Denis Magda <
> > > > >>> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would propose adding another point to the
> > motivations
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> > > > >>> > > which
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to the ORM frameworks such as Spring Data,
> > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the storage engine requires to
> distinguish
> > > key
> > > > >>> > objects
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones that complicate the usage of Ignite with
> > > those
> > > > >>> ORM
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially if a key object comprises several
> > fields).
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> > > > >>> on
> > > > >>> > > this
> > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >>> > >
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice if the new schema-first approach
> > allows
> > > > us
> > > > >>> to
> > > > >>> > > work
> > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single entity object when it comes to the ORMs.
> With
> > no
> > > > >>> need to
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a key and value. Just want to be sure
> > that
> > > > the
> > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the essential public APIs that would support
> the
> > > > >>> > > single-entity
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you think?
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:50 PM Valentin
> Kulichenko <
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the big changes proposed for Ignite 3.0 is
> > the
> > > > >>> > so-called
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first approach". To add more clarity,
> I've
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> > > > >>> > > > writing
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this change:
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >>> > >
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a look and let me know if there are
> any
> > > > >>> immediate
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions, or objections.
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >>> > > > --
> > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >>> > >
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>]

Denis,

Good point. Both serializers use reflection API.
However, we will allow users to configure static schema along with 'strict'
schema mode, we still need to validate user classes on client nodes against
the latest schema in the grid  and reflection API is the only way to do it.
One can find a few articles on the internet on how to enable reflection in
GraalVM.

I'll create a task for supporting GraalVM, and maybe someone who is
familiar with GraalVM will suggest a solution or a proper workaround. Or
I'll do it a bit later.
If no workaround is found, we could allow users to write it's own
serializer, but I don't think it is a good idea to expose any internal
classes to the public.

On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:

> Andrey, thanks for the update,
>
> Does any of the serializers take into consideration the
> native-image-generation feature of GraalVM?
> https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
>
> With the current binary marshaller, we can't even generate a native image
> for the code using our thin client APIs.
>
> -
> Denis
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM Andrey Mashenkov <
> andrey.mashenkov@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Igniters,
> >
> > I'd like to continue discussion of IEP-54 (Schema-first approach).
> >
> > Hope everyone who is interested had a chance to get familiar with the
> > proposal [1].
> > Please, do not hesitate to ask questions and share your ideas.
> >
> > I've prepared a prototype of serializer [2] for the data layout described
> > in the proposal.
> > In prototy, I compared 2 approaches to (de)serialize objects, the first
> one
> > uses java reflection/unsafe API and similar to one we already use in
> Ignite
> > and the second one generates serializer for particular user class and
> uses
> > Janino library for compilation.
> > Second one shows better results in benchmarks.
> > I think we can go with it as default serializer and have reflection-based
> > implementation as a fallback if someone will have issues with the first
> > one.
> > WDYT?
> >
> > There are a number of tasks under the umbrella ticket [3] waiting for the
> > assignee.
> >
> > BTW, I'm going to create more tickets for schema manager modes
> > implementation, but would like to clarify some details.
> >
> > I thought schemaManager on each node should held:
> >   1. Local mapping of "schema version" <--> validated local key/value
> > classes pair.
> >   2. Cluster-wide schema changes history.
> > On the client side. Before any key-value API operation we should
> validate a
> > schema for a given key-value pair.
> > If there is no local-mapping exists for a given key-value pair or if a
> > cluster wide schema has a more recent version then the key-value pair
> > should be validated against the latest version and local mapping should
> be
> > updated/actualized.
> > If an object doesn't fit to the latest schema then it depends on schema
> > mode: either fail the operation ('strict' mode) or a new mapping should
> be
> > created and a new schema version should be propagated to the cluster.
> >
> > On the server side we usually have no key-value classes and we operate
> with
> > tuples.
> > As schema change history is available and a tuple has schema version,
> then
> > it is possible to upgrade any received tuple to the last version without
> > desialization.
> > Thus we could allow nodes to send key-value pairs of previous versions
> (if
> > they didn't receive a schema update yet) without reverting schema changes
> > made by a node with newer classes.
> >
> > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the same?
> >
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > Please do not ignore history. We had a thread [1] with many bright
> > > ideas. We can resume it.
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > >
> > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>:
> > > > Val, makes sense, thanks for explaining.
> > > >
> > > > Agree that we need to have a separate discussion thread for the
> "table"
> > > and
> > > > "cache" terms substitution. I'll appreciate it if you start the
> thread
> > > > sharing pointers to any relevant IEPs and reasoning behind the
> > suggested
> > > > change.
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > > Denis
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > >>
> > > >> I guess the wording in the IEP is a little bit confusing. All it
> means
> > > is
> > > >> that you should not create nested POJOs, but rather inline fields
> > into a
> > > >> single POJO that is mapped to a particular schema. In other words,
> > > nested
> > > >> POJOs are not supported.
> > > >>
> > > >> Alex, is this correct? Please let me know if I'm missing something.
> > > >>
> > > >> As for the "cache" term, I agree that it is outdated, but I'm not
> sure
> > > >> what we can replace it with. "Table" is tightly associated with SQL,
> > but
> > > >> SQL is optional in our case. Do you want to create a separate
> > discussion
> > > >> about this?
> > > >>
> > > >> -Val
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Val,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I've checked the IEP again and have a few questions.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects and collections are not allowed as column
> > > >>> values.
> > > >>> > Nested POJOs should either be inlined into schema, or stored as
> > BLOBs
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Could you provide a DDL code snippet showing how the inlining of
> > POJOs
> > > >>> is
> > > >>> supposed to work?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Also, we keep using the terms "cache" and "table" throughout the
> IEP.
> > > Is
> > > >>> it
> > > >>> the right time to discuss an alternate name that would replace
> those
> > > >>> too?
> > > >>> Personally, the "table" should stay and the "cache" should go
> > > >>> considering
> > > >>> that SQL is one of the primary APIs in Ignite and that DDL is
> > supported
> > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> -
> > > >>> Denis
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > >>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > I see your point. I agree that with the automatic updates we step
> > > into
> > > >>> the
> > > >>> > schema-last territory.
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > Actually, if we support automatic evolution, we can as well
> support
> > > >>> > creating a cache without schema and inferring it from the first
> > > >>> > insert.
> > > >>> In
> > > >>> > other words, we can have both "schema-first" and "schema-last"
> > modes.
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > Alexey, what do you think?
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > -Val
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > >>> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > > >>> > wrote:
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> > > Thank you, I got your concern now. As it is mostly regarding
> the
> > > >>> > > terminology, I am absolutely fine with changing the name to
> > > whatever
> > > >>> fits
> > > >>> > > the approach best. Dynamic or evolving schema sounds great. I
> > will
> > > >>> make
> > > >>> > > corresponding changes to the IEP once we settle on the name.
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в 11:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <
> vololo100@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > Thank you for your answer!
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > My understanding is a little bit different. Yes, schema
> > evolution
> > > >>> > > > definitely should be possible. But I see a main difference in
> > > "how
> > > >>> > > > schema is updated". I treat a common SQL approach
> schema-first.
> > > >>> Schema
> > > >>> > > > and data manipulation operations are clearly separated and it
> > > >>> enables
> > > >>> > > > interesting capabilities, e.g. preventing untended schema
> > changes
> > > >>> > > > by
> > > >>> > > > mistaken data operations, restricting user permissions to
> > change
> > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > > Schema-first means that schema exists in advance and all
> the
> > > >>> stored
> > > >>> > > data
> > > >>> > > > is compliant with it - that's exactly what is proposed.
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > A schema-last approach mentioned in [1] also assumes that
> > schema
> > > >>> > > > exists, but it is inferred from data. Is not it more similar
> to
> > > >>> > > > the
> > > >>> > > > proposing approach?
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > And I would like to say, that my main concern so far is
> mostly
> > > >>> > > > about
> > > >>> > > > terminology. And I suppose if it confuses me then others
> might
> > be
> > > >>> > > > confused as well. My feeling is closer to "dynamic or liquid
> or
> > > >>> > > > may
> > > >>> be
> > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47 GMT+03:00, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > >>> > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > >>> > > > >
> > > >>> > > > > I don't see an issue with that. Schema-first means that
> > schema
> > > >>> exists
> > > >>> > > in
> > > >>> > > > > advance and all the stored data is compliant with it -
> that's
> > > >>> exactly
> > > >>> > > > what
> > > >>> > > > > is proposed. There are no restrictions prohibiting changes
> to
> > > >>> > > > > the
> > > >>> > > schema.
> > > >>> > > > >
> > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > >>> > > > >
> > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:52 PM Ivan Pavlukhin <
> > > >>> vololo100@gmail.com>
> > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > >>> > > > >
> > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > > >>> > > > >>
> > > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit confused with terminology. My
> > understanding
> > > >>> > conforms
> > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see part X Semi Structured Data). Can we
> > > >>> > > > >> really
> > > >>> > treat
> > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema" approach as a kind of "schema-first"?
> > > >>> > > > >>
> > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > >>> > > > >>
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>>
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > >>> > > > >>
> > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org
> >:
> > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the relation
> > between
> > > >>> > Ignite
> > > >>> > > > and
> > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of
> > Ignite
> > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > >>> > > haven't
> > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the
> Ignite
> > > >>> side to
> > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API
> which
> > we
> > > >>> > already
> > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes, if all the ORM integrations use Ignite
> > SQL
> > > >>> APIs
> > > >>> > > > >> > internally, then they can easily translate an Entity
> > object
> > > >>> into
> > > >>> > an
> > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE statement that lists all the object's
> > fields.
> > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data integration is already based on the Ignite
> SQL
> > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > > >>> > and
> > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > > >>> > > > >> > to be improved once the schema-first approach is
> > supported.
> > > >>> That
> > > >>> > > would
> > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of usability issues.
> > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >>> > > > >> > I would revise the Hibernate integration as well during
> > the
> > > >>> Ignite
> > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say if it's used a lot but Spring Data is
> > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> > > >>> > > > traction
> > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind, I'll loop you in as long as you've
> > started
> > > >>> > working
> > > >>> > > > on
> > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support for Micornaut Data
> > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > >>> >
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > >>> > > > and
> > > >>> > > > >> > came across some challenges. Just watch this discussion.
> > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > > >>> > what
> > > >>> > > > is
> > > >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite 3.0.
> > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 5:11 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > >>> > > > >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally speaking, I believe that the schema-first
> > > approach
> > > >>> > > natively
> > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the issue if duplicate fields in key and
> value
> > > >>> objects,
> > > >>> > > > >> because
> > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be created for a cache, not for an object,
> as
> > > it
> > > >>> > > happens
> > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the schema will define whether there is a
> > > primary
> > > >>> key
> > > >>> > or
> > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > > >>> > > > >> >> and which fields are included in case there is one. Any
> > API
> > > >>> that
> > > >>> > we
> > > >>> > > > >> would
> > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be compliant with this, so it becomes fairly
> > easy
> > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > > >>> > work
> > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a set of records, rather than key-value
> > pairs.
> > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the relation
> > between
> > > >>> > Ignite
> > > >>> > > > and
> > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of
> > Ignite
> > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > >>> > > haven't
> > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the
> Ignite
> > > >>> side to
> > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API
> which
> > we
> > > >>> > already
> > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:08 PM Denis Magda <
> > > >>> dmagda@apache.org>
> > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would propose adding another point to the
> motivations
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> > > >>> > > which
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to the ORM frameworks such as Spring Data,
> > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
> > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the storage engine requires to distinguish
> > key
> > > >>> > objects
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones that complicate the usage of Ignite with
> > those
> > > >>> ORM
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially if a key object comprises several
> fields).
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> > > >>> on
> > > >>> > > this
> > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
> > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >>> > > > >>
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice if the new schema-first approach
> allows
> > > us
> > > >>> to
> > > >>> > > work
> > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > single entity object when it comes to the ORMs. With
> no
> > > >>> need to
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a key and value. Just want to be sure
> that
> > > the
> > > >>> > Ignite
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the essential public APIs that would support the
> > > >>> > > single-entity
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you think?
> > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:50 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the big changes proposed for Ignite 3.0 is
> the
> > > >>> > so-called
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first approach". To add more clarity, I've
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> > > >>> > > > writing
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this change:
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >>> > > > >>
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a look and let me know if there are any
> > > >>> immediate
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions, or objections.
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >>> > > > >>
> > > >>> > > > >>
> > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > >>> > > > >>
> > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > >>> > > > >>
> > > >>> > > > >
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > --
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >
>


-- 
Best regards,
Andrey V. Mashenkov

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>]

Andrey, thanks for the update,

Does any of the serializers take into consideration the
native-image-generation feature of GraalVM?
https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/

With the current binary marshaller, we can't even generate a native image
for the code using our thin client APIs.

-
Denis


On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Igniters,
>
> I'd like to continue discussion of IEP-54 (Schema-first approach).
>
> Hope everyone who is interested had a chance to get familiar with the
> proposal [1].
> Please, do not hesitate to ask questions and share your ideas.
>
> I've prepared a prototype of serializer [2] for the data layout described
> in the proposal.
> In prototy, I compared 2 approaches to (de)serialize objects, the first one
> uses java reflection/unsafe API and similar to one we already use in Ignite
> and the second one generates serializer for particular user class and uses
> Janino library for compilation.
> Second one shows better results in benchmarks.
> I think we can go with it as default serializer and have reflection-based
> implementation as a fallback if someone will have issues with the first
> one.
> WDYT?
>
> There are a number of tasks under the umbrella ticket [3] waiting for the
> assignee.
>
> BTW, I'm going to create more tickets for schema manager modes
> implementation, but would like to clarify some details.
>
> I thought schemaManager on each node should held:
>   1. Local mapping of "schema version" <--> validated local key/value
> classes pair.
>   2. Cluster-wide schema changes history.
> On the client side. Before any key-value API operation we should validate a
> schema for a given key-value pair.
> If there is no local-mapping exists for a given key-value pair or if a
> cluster wide schema has a more recent version then the key-value pair
> should be validated against the latest version and local mapping should be
> updated/actualized.
> If an object doesn't fit to the latest schema then it depends on schema
> mode: either fail the operation ('strict' mode) or a new mapping should be
> created and a new schema version should be propagated to the cluster.
>
> On the server side we usually have no key-value classes and we operate with
> tuples.
> As schema change history is available and a tuple has schema version, then
> it is possible to upgrade any received tuple to the last version without
> desialization.
> Thus we could allow nodes to send key-value pairs of previous versions (if
> they didn't receive a schema update yet) without reverting schema changes
> made by a node with newer classes.
>
> Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the same?
>
>
> [1]
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
>
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Folks,
> >
> > Please do not ignore history. We had a thread [1] with many bright
> > ideas. We can resume it.
> >
> > [1]
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> >
> > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>:
> > > Val, makes sense, thanks for explaining.
> > >
> > > Agree that we need to have a separate discussion thread for the "table"
> > and
> > > "cache" terms substitution. I'll appreciate it if you start the thread
> > > sharing pointers to any relevant IEPs and reasoning behind the
> suggested
> > > change.
> > >
> > > -
> > > Denis
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi Denis,
> > >>
> > >> I guess the wording in the IEP is a little bit confusing. All it means
> > is
> > >> that you should not create nested POJOs, but rather inline fields
> into a
> > >> single POJO that is mapped to a particular schema. In other words,
> > nested
> > >> POJOs are not supported.
> > >>
> > >> Alex, is this correct? Please let me know if I'm missing something.
> > >>
> > >> As for the "cache" term, I agree that it is outdated, but I'm not sure
> > >> what we can replace it with. "Table" is tightly associated with SQL,
> but
> > >> SQL is optional in our case. Do you want to create a separate
> discussion
> > >> about this?
> > >>
> > >> -Val
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Val,
> > >>>
> > >>> I've checked the IEP again and have a few questions.
> > >>>
> > >>> Arbitrary nested objects and collections are not allowed as column
> > >>> values.
> > >>> > Nested POJOs should either be inlined into schema, or stored as
> BLOBs
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Could you provide a DDL code snippet showing how the inlining of
> POJOs
> > >>> is
> > >>> supposed to work?
> > >>>
> > >>> Also, we keep using the terms "cache" and "table" throughout the IEP.
> > Is
> > >>> it
> > >>> the right time to discuss an alternate name that would replace those
> > >>> too?
> > >>> Personally, the "table" should stay and the "cache" should go
> > >>> considering
> > >>> that SQL is one of the primary APIs in Ignite and that DDL is
> supported
> > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> -
> > >>> Denis
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > >>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> > Ivan,
> > >>> >
> > >>> > I see your point. I agree that with the automatic updates we step
> > into
> > >>> the
> > >>> > schema-last territory.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Actually, if we support automatic evolution, we can as well support
> > >>> > creating a cache without schema and inferring it from the first
> > >>> > insert.
> > >>> In
> > >>> > other words, we can have both "schema-first" and "schema-last"
> modes.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Alexey, what do you think?
> > >>> >
> > >>> > -Val
> > >>> >
> > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > >>> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > >>> > wrote:
> > >>> >
> > >>> > > Ivan,
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > Thank you, I got your concern now. As it is mostly regarding the
> > >>> > > terminology, I am absolutely fine with changing the name to
> > whatever
> > >>> fits
> > >>> > > the approach best. Dynamic or evolving schema sounds great. I
> will
> > >>> make
> > >>> > > corresponding changes to the IEP once we settle on the name.
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в 11:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <vololo100@gmail.com
> >:
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > Thank you for your answer!
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > My understanding is a little bit different. Yes, schema
> evolution
> > >>> > > > definitely should be possible. But I see a main difference in
> > "how
> > >>> > > > schema is updated". I treat a common SQL approach schema-first.
> > >>> Schema
> > >>> > > > and data manipulation operations are clearly separated and it
> > >>> enables
> > >>> > > > interesting capabilities, e.g. preventing untended schema
> changes
> > >>> > > > by
> > >>> > > > mistaken data operations, restricting user permissions to
> change
> > >>> > > > schema.
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > > Schema-first means that schema exists in advance and all the
> > >>> stored
> > >>> > > data
> > >>> > > > is compliant with it - that's exactly what is proposed.
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > A schema-last approach mentioned in [1] also assumes that
> schema
> > >>> > > > exists, but it is inferred from data. Is not it more similar to
> > >>> > > > the
> > >>> > > > proposing approach?
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > And I would like to say, that my main concern so far is mostly
> > >>> > > > about
> > >>> > > > terminology. And I suppose if it confuses me then others might
> be
> > >>> > > > confused as well. My feeling is closer to "dynamic or liquid or
> > >>> > > > may
> > >>> be
> > >>> > > > evolving schema".
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > [1]
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47 GMT+03:00, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > >>> > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > > I don't see an issue with that. Schema-first means that
> schema
> > >>> exists
> > >>> > > in
> > >>> > > > > advance and all the stored data is compliant with it - that's
> > >>> exactly
> > >>> > > > what
> > >>> > > > > is proposed. There are no restrictions prohibiting changes to
> > >>> > > > > the
> > >>> > > schema.
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > > -Val
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:52 PM Ivan Pavlukhin <
> > >>> vololo100@gmail.com>
> > >>> > > > wrote:
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > >>> > > > >>
> > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit confused with terminology. My
> understanding
> > >>> > conforms
> > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see part X Semi Structured Data). Can we
> > >>> > > > >> really
> > >>> > treat
> > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema" approach as a kind of "schema-first"?
> > >>> > > > >>
> > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > >>> > > > >>
> > >>> > >
> > >>>
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > >>> > > > >>
> > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>:
> > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the relation
> between
> > >>> > Ignite
> > >>> > > > and
> > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of
> Ignite
> > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > >>> > > haven't
> > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the Ignite
> > >>> side to
> > >>> > > > >> support
> > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API which
> we
> > >>> > already
> > >>> > > > >> have.
> > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > >>> > > > >> >
> > >>> > > > >> >
> > >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes, if all the ORM integrations use Ignite
> SQL
> > >>> APIs
> > >>> > > > >> > internally, then they can easily translate an Entity
> object
> > >>> into
> > >>> > an
> > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE statement that lists all the object's
> fields.
> > >>> > Luckily,
> > >>> > > > >> > our
> > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data integration is already based on the Ignite SQL
> > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > >>> > and
> > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > >>> > > > >> > to be improved once the schema-first approach is
> supported.
> > >>> That
> > >>> > > would
> > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of usability issues.
> > >>> > > > >> >
> > >>> > > > >> > I would revise the Hibernate integration as well during
> the
> > >>> Ignite
> > >>> > > 3.0
> > >>> > > > >> dev
> > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say if it's used a lot but Spring Data is
> > >>> > > > >> > getting
> > >>> > > > traction
> > >>> > > > >> for
> > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > >>> > > > >> >
> > >>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind, I'll loop you in as long as you've
> started
> > >>> > working
> > >>> > > > on
> > >>> > > > >> the
> > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support for Micornaut Data
> > >>> > > > >> > <
> > >>> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > >>> > > > and
> > >>> > > > >> > came across some challenges. Just watch this discussion.
> > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > >>> > what
> > >>> > > > is
> > >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite 3.0.
> > >>> > > > >> >
> > >>> > > > >> >
> > >>> > > > >> > -
> > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > >>> > > > >> >
> > >>> > > > >> >
> > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 5:11 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > >>> > > > >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> > > > >> >
> > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >>> > > > >> >> Generally speaking, I believe that the schema-first
> > approach
> > >>> > > natively
> > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the issue if duplicate fields in key and value
> > >>> objects,
> > >>> > > > >> because
> > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be created for a cache, not for an object, as
> > it
> > >>> > > happens
> > >>> > > > >> now.
> > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the schema will define whether there is a
> > primary
> > >>> key
> > >>> > or
> > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > >>> > > > >> >> and which fields are included in case there is one. Any
> API
> > >>> that
> > >>> > we
> > >>> > > > >> would
> > >>> > > > >> >> have must be compliant with this, so it becomes fairly
> easy
> > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > >>> > work
> > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a set of records, rather than key-value
> pairs.
> > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the relation
> between
> > >>> > Ignite
> > >>> > > > and
> > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of
> Ignite
> > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > >>> > > haven't
> > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the Ignite
> > >>> side to
> > >>> > > > >> support
> > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API which
> we
> > >>> > already
> > >>> > > > >> have.
> > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:08 PM Denis Magda <
> > >>> dmagda@apache.org>
> > >>> > > > wrote:
> > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >>> > > > >> >> > I would propose adding another point to the motivations
> > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> > >>> > > which
> > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > >>> > > > >> >> > related to the ORM frameworks such as Spring Data,
> > >>> Hibernate,
> > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
> > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the storage engine requires to distinguish
> key
> > >>> > objects
> > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones that complicate the usage of Ignite with
> those
> > >>> ORM
> > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially if a key object comprises several fields).
> > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> > >>> on
> > >>> > > this
> > >>> > > > >> can
> > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
> > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >>> > > > >>
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > >
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice if the new schema-first approach allows
> > us
> > >>> to
> > >>> > > work
> > >>> > > > >> with
> > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > >>> > > > >> >> > single entity object when it comes to the ORMs. With no
> > >>> need to
> > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a key and value. Just want to be sure that
> > the
> > >>> > Ignite
> > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > >>> > > > >> >> > all the essential public APIs that would support the
> > >>> > > single-entity
> > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you think?
> > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:50 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > >>> > > > >> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the big changes proposed for Ignite 3.0 is the
> > >>> > so-called
> > >>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first approach". To add more clarity, I've
> > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> > >>> > > > writing
> > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this change:
> > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >>> > > > >>
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > >
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a look and let me know if there are any
> > >>> immediate
> > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > >>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions, or objections.
> > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >>> > > > >> >
> > >>> > > > >>
> > >>> > > > >>
> > >>> > > > >> --
> > >>> > > > >>
> > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > >>> > > > >>
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > --
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > Best regards,
> > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > >
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Ivan Pavlukhin
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Andrey Mashenkov <an...@gmail.com>]

Hi Igniters,

I'd like to continue discussion of IEP-54 (Schema-first approach).

Hope everyone who is interested had a chance to get familiar with the
proposal [1].
Please, do not hesitate to ask questions and share your ideas.

I've prepared a prototype of serializer [2] for the data layout described
in the proposal.
In prototy, I compared 2 approaches to (de)serialize objects, the first one
uses java reflection/unsafe API and similar to one we already use in Ignite
and the second one generates serializer for particular user class and uses
Janino library for compilation.
Second one shows better results in benchmarks.
I think we can go with it as default serializer and have reflection-based
implementation as a fallback if someone will have issues with the first one.
WDYT?

There are a number of tasks under the umbrella ticket [3] waiting for the
assignee.

BTW, I'm going to create more tickets for schema manager modes
implementation, but would like to clarify some details.

I thought schemaManager on each node should held:
  1. Local mapping of "schema version" <--> validated local key/value
classes pair.
  2. Cluster-wide schema changes history.
On the client side. Before any key-value API operation we should validate a
schema for a given key-value pair.
If there is no local-mapping exists for a given key-value pair or if a
cluster wide schema has a more recent version then the key-value pair
should be validated against the latest version and local mapping should be
updated/actualized.
If an object doesn't fit to the latest schema then it depends on schema
mode: either fail the operation ('strict' mode) or a new mapping should be
created and a new schema version should be propagated to the cluster.

On the server side we usually have no key-value classes and we operate with
tuples.
As schema change history is available and a tuple has schema version, then
it is possible to upgrade any received tuple to the last version without
desialization.
Thus we could allow nodes to send key-value pairs of previous versions (if
they didn't receive a schema update yet) without reverting schema changes
made by a node with newer classes.

Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the same?


[1]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
[2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
[3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616

On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Folks,
>
> Please do not ignore history. We had a thread [1] with many bright
> ideas. We can resume it.
>
> [1]
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
>
> 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>:
> > Val, makes sense, thanks for explaining.
> >
> > Agree that we need to have a separate discussion thread for the "table"
> and
> > "cache" terms substitution. I'll appreciate it if you start the thread
> > sharing pointers to any relevant IEPs and reasoning behind the suggested
> > change.
> >
> > -
> > Denis
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Denis,
> >>
> >> I guess the wording in the IEP is a little bit confusing. All it means
> is
> >> that you should not create nested POJOs, but rather inline fields into a
> >> single POJO that is mapped to a particular schema. In other words,
> nested
> >> POJOs are not supported.
> >>
> >> Alex, is this correct? Please let me know if I'm missing something.
> >>
> >> As for the "cache" term, I agree that it is outdated, but I'm not sure
> >> what we can replace it with. "Table" is tightly associated with SQL, but
> >> SQL is optional in our case. Do you want to create a separate discussion
> >> about this?
> >>
> >> -Val
> >>
> >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Val,
> >>>
> >>> I've checked the IEP again and have a few questions.
> >>>
> >>> Arbitrary nested objects and collections are not allowed as column
> >>> values.
> >>> > Nested POJOs should either be inlined into schema, or stored as BLOBs
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Could you provide a DDL code snippet showing how the inlining of POJOs
> >>> is
> >>> supposed to work?
> >>>
> >>> Also, we keep using the terms "cache" and "table" throughout the IEP.
> Is
> >>> it
> >>> the right time to discuss an alternate name that would replace those
> >>> too?
> >>> Personally, the "table" should stay and the "cache" should go
> >>> considering
> >>> that SQL is one of the primary APIs in Ignite and that DDL is supported
> >>> out-of-the-box.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -
> >>> Denis
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> >>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > Ivan,
> >>> >
> >>> > I see your point. I agree that with the automatic updates we step
> into
> >>> the
> >>> > schema-last territory.
> >>> >
> >>> > Actually, if we support automatic evolution, we can as well support
> >>> > creating a cache without schema and inferring it from the first
> >>> > insert.
> >>> In
> >>> > other words, we can have both "schema-first" and "schema-last" modes.
> >>> >
> >>> > Alexey, what do you think?
> >>> >
> >>> > -Val
> >>> >
> >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> >>> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > > Ivan,
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Thank you, I got your concern now. As it is mostly regarding the
> >>> > > terminology, I am absolutely fine with changing the name to
> whatever
> >>> fits
> >>> > > the approach best. Dynamic or evolving schema sounds great. I will
> >>> make
> >>> > > corresponding changes to the IEP once we settle on the name.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в 11:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com>:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > > Hi Val,
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Thank you for your answer!
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > My understanding is a little bit different. Yes, schema evolution
> >>> > > > definitely should be possible. But I see a main difference in
> "how
> >>> > > > schema is updated". I treat a common SQL approach schema-first.
> >>> Schema
> >>> > > > and data manipulation operations are clearly separated and it
> >>> enables
> >>> > > > interesting capabilities, e.g. preventing untended schema changes
> >>> > > > by
> >>> > > > mistaken data operations, restricting user permissions to change
> >>> > > > schema.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > > Schema-first means that schema exists in advance and all the
> >>> stored
> >>> > > data
> >>> > > > is compliant with it - that's exactly what is proposed.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > A schema-last approach mentioned in [1] also assumes that schema
> >>> > > > exists, but it is inferred from data. Is not it more similar to
> >>> > > > the
> >>> > > > proposing approach?
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > And I would like to say, that my main concern so far is mostly
> >>> > > > about
> >>> > > > terminology. And I suppose if it confuses me then others might be
> >>> > > > confused as well. My feeling is closer to "dynamic or liquid or
> >>> > > > may
> >>> be
> >>> > > > evolving schema".
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > [1]
> >>> > > >
> >>> >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47 GMT+03:00, Valentin Kulichenko <
> >>> > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > I don't see an issue with that. Schema-first means that schema
> >>> exists
> >>> > > in
> >>> > > > > advance and all the stored data is compliant with it - that's
> >>> exactly
> >>> > > > what
> >>> > > > > is proposed. There are no restrictions prohibiting changes to
> >>> > > > > the
> >>> > > schema.
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > -Val
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:52 PM Ivan Pavlukhin <
> >>> vololo100@gmail.com>
> >>> > > > wrote:
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >> I am a little bit confused with terminology. My understanding
> >>> > conforms
> >>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see part X Semi Structured Data). Can we
> >>> > > > >> really
> >>> > treat
> >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema" approach as a kind of "schema-first"?
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >> [1]
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > >
> >>>
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>:
> >>> > > > >> >>
> >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the relation between
> >>> > Ignite
> >>> > > > and
> >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of Ignite
> >>> > > > >> >> (I
> >>> > > haven't
> >>> > > > >> >> seen
> >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the Ignite
> >>> side to
> >>> > > > >> support
> >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API which we
> >>> > already
> >>> > > > >> have.
> >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> >>> > > > >> >
> >>> > > > >> >
> >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes, if all the ORM integrations use Ignite SQL
> >>> APIs
> >>> > > > >> > internally, then they can easily translate an Entity object
> >>> into
> >>> > an
> >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE statement that lists all the object's fields.
> >>> > Luckily,
> >>> > > > >> > our
> >>> > > > >> > Spring Data integration is already based on the Ignite SQL
> >>> > > > >> > APIs
> >>> > and
> >>> > > > >> > needs
> >>> > > > >> > to be improved once the schema-first approach is supported.
> >>> That
> >>> > > would
> >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of usability issues.
> >>> > > > >> >
> >>> > > > >> > I would revise the Hibernate integration as well during the
> >>> Ignite
> >>> > > 3.0
> >>> > > > >> dev
> >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say if it's used a lot but Spring Data is
> >>> > > > >> > getting
> >>> > > > traction
> >>> > > > >> for
> >>> > > > >> > sure.
> >>> > > > >> >
> >>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind, I'll loop you in as long as you've started
> >>> > working
> >>> > > > on
> >>> > > > >> the
> >>> > > > >> > Ignite support for Micornaut Data
> >>> > > > >> > <
> >>> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> >>> > > > and
> >>> > > > >> > came across some challenges. Just watch this discussion.
> >>> > > > >> > That's
> >>> > what
> >>> > > > is
> >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite 3.0.
> >>> > > > >> >
> >>> > > > >> >
> >>> > > > >> > -
> >>> > > > >> > Denis
> >>> > > > >> >
> >>> > > > >> >
> >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 5:11 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> >>> > > > >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > > > >> >
> >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> >>> > > > >> >>
> >>> > > > >> >> Generally speaking, I believe that the schema-first
> approach
> >>> > > natively
> >>> > > > >> >> addresses the issue if duplicate fields in key and value
> >>> objects,
> >>> > > > >> because
> >>> > > > >> >> schema will be created for a cache, not for an object, as
> it
> >>> > > happens
> >>> > > > >> now.
> >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the schema will define whether there is a
> primary
> >>> key
> >>> > or
> >>> > > > >> >> not,
> >>> > > > >> >> and which fields are included in case there is one. Any API
> >>> that
> >>> > we
> >>> > > > >> would
> >>> > > > >> >> have must be compliant with this, so it becomes fairly easy
> >>> > > > >> >> to
> >>> > work
> >>> > > > >> >> with
> >>> > > > >> >> data as with a set of records, rather than key-value pairs.
> >>> > > > >> >>
> >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the relation between
> >>> > Ignite
> >>> > > > and
> >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of Ignite
> >>> > > > >> >> (I
> >>> > > haven't
> >>> > > > >> >> seen
> >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the Ignite
> >>> side to
> >>> > > > >> support
> >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API which we
> >>> > already
> >>> > > > >> have.
> >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> >>> > > > >> >>
> >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> >>> > > > >> >>
> >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:08 PM Denis Magda <
> >>> dmagda@apache.org>
> >>> > > > wrote:
> >>> > > > >> >>
> >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> >>> > > > >> >> >
> >>> > > > >> >> > I would propose adding another point to the motivations
> >>> > > > >> >> > list
> >>> > > which
> >>> > > > >> >> > is
> >>> > > > >> >> > related to the ORM frameworks such as Spring Data,
> >>> Hibernate,
> >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> >>> > > > >> >> and
> >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
> >>> > > > >> >> >
> >>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the storage engine requires to distinguish key
> >>> > objects
> >>> > > > >> >> > from
> >>> > > > >> >> the
> >>> > > > >> >> > value ones that complicate the usage of Ignite with those
> >>> ORM
> >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> >>> > > > >> >> > (especially if a key object comprises several fields).
> >>> > > > >> >> > More
> >>> on
> >>> > > this
> >>> > > > >> can
> >>> > > > >> >> be
> >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
> >>> > > > >> >> >
> >>> > > > >> >> >
> >>> > > > >> >>
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > >
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>>
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> >>> > > > >> >> >
> >>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice if the new schema-first approach allows
> us
> >>> to
> >>> > > work
> >>> > > > >> with
> >>> > > > >> >> > a
> >>> > > > >> >> > single entity object when it comes to the ORMs. With no
> >>> need to
> >>> > > > >> >> > split
> >>> > > > >> >> > the
> >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a key and value. Just want to be sure that
> the
> >>> > Ignite
> >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> >>> > > > >> >> > has
> >>> > > > >> >> > all the essential public APIs that would support the
> >>> > > single-entity
> >>> > > > >> >> > based
> >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> >>> > > > >> >> >
> >>> > > > >> >> > What do you think?
> >>> > > > >> >> >
> >>> > > > >> >> > -
> >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> >>> > > > >> >> >
> >>> > > > >> >> >
> >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:50 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> >>> > > > >> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > > > >> >> >
> >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the big changes proposed for Ignite 3.0 is the
> >>> > so-called
> >>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first approach". To add more clarity, I've
> >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> >>> > > > writing
> >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> >>> > > > >> >> > > for this change:
> >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >>> > > > >> >> >
> >>> > > > >> >>
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > >
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a look and let me know if there are any
> >>> immediate
> >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> >>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions, or objections.
> >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >>> > > > >> >> >
> >>> > > > >> >>
> >>> > > > >> >
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >> --
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > --
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Best regards,
> >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> >>> > > >
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
> Ivan Pavlukhin
>


-- 
Best regards,
Andrey V. Mashenkov

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com>]

Folks,

Please do not ignore history. We had a thread [1] with many bright
ideas. We can resume it.

[1] http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html

2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>:
> Val, makes sense, thanks for explaining.
>
> Agree that we need to have a separate discussion thread for the "table" and
> "cache" terms substitution. I'll appreciate it if you start the thread
> sharing pointers to any relevant IEPs and reasoning behind the suggested
> change.
>
> -
> Denis
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Denis,
>>
>> I guess the wording in the IEP is a little bit confusing. All it means is
>> that you should not create nested POJOs, but rather inline fields into a
>> single POJO that is mapped to a particular schema. In other words, nested
>> POJOs are not supported.
>>
>> Alex, is this correct? Please let me know if I'm missing something.
>>
>> As for the "cache" term, I agree that it is outdated, but I'm not sure
>> what we can replace it with. "Table" is tightly associated with SQL, but
>> SQL is optional in our case. Do you want to create a separate discussion
>> about this?
>>
>> -Val
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Val,
>>>
>>> I've checked the IEP again and have a few questions.
>>>
>>> Arbitrary nested objects and collections are not allowed as column
>>> values.
>>> > Nested POJOs should either be inlined into schema, or stored as BLOBs
>>>
>>>
>>> Could you provide a DDL code snippet showing how the inlining of POJOs
>>> is
>>> supposed to work?
>>>
>>> Also, we keep using the terms "cache" and "table" throughout the IEP. Is
>>> it
>>> the right time to discuss an alternate name that would replace those
>>> too?
>>> Personally, the "table" should stay and the "cache" should go
>>> considering
>>> that SQL is one of the primary APIs in Ignite and that DDL is supported
>>> out-of-the-box.
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Denis
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Ivan,
>>> >
>>> > I see your point. I agree that with the automatic updates we step into
>>> the
>>> > schema-last territory.
>>> >
>>> > Actually, if we support automatic evolution, we can as well support
>>> > creating a cache without schema and inferring it from the first
>>> > insert.
>>> In
>>> > other words, we can have both "schema-first" and "schema-last" modes.
>>> >
>>> > Alexey, what do you think?
>>> >
>>> > -Val
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
>>> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Ivan,
>>> > >
>>> > > Thank you, I got your concern now. As it is mostly regarding the
>>> > > terminology, I am absolutely fine with changing the name to whatever
>>> fits
>>> > > the approach best. Dynamic or evolving schema sounds great. I will
>>> make
>>> > > corresponding changes to the IEP once we settle on the name.
>>> > >
>>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в 11:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com>:
>>> > >
>>> > > > Hi Val,
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Thank you for your answer!
>>> > > >
>>> > > > My understanding is a little bit different. Yes, schema evolution
>>> > > > definitely should be possible. But I see a main difference in "how
>>> > > > schema is updated". I treat a common SQL approach schema-first.
>>> Schema
>>> > > > and data manipulation operations are clearly separated and it
>>> enables
>>> > > > interesting capabilities, e.g. preventing untended schema changes
>>> > > > by
>>> > > > mistaken data operations, restricting user permissions to change
>>> > > > schema.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > Schema-first means that schema exists in advance and all the
>>> stored
>>> > > data
>>> > > > is compliant with it - that's exactly what is proposed.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > A schema-last approach mentioned in [1] also assumes that schema
>>> > > > exists, but it is inferred from data. Is not it more similar to
>>> > > > the
>>> > > > proposing approach?
>>> > > >
>>> > > > And I would like to say, that my main concern so far is mostly
>>> > > > about
>>> > > > terminology. And I suppose if it confuses me then others might be
>>> > > > confused as well. My feeling is closer to "dynamic or liquid or
>>> > > > may
>>> be
>>> > > > evolving schema".
>>> > > >
>>> > > > [1]
>>> > > >
>>> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
>>> > > >
>>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47 GMT+03:00, Valentin Kulichenko <
>>> > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
>>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > I don't see an issue with that. Schema-first means that schema
>>> exists
>>> > > in
>>> > > > > advance and all the stored data is compliant with it - that's
>>> exactly
>>> > > > what
>>> > > > > is proposed. There are no restrictions prohibiting changes to
>>> > > > > the
>>> > > schema.
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > -Val
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:52 PM Ivan Pavlukhin <
>>> vololo100@gmail.com>
>>> > > > wrote:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >> Alexey,
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> I am a little bit confused with terminology. My understanding
>>> > conforms
>>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see part X Semi Structured Data). Can we
>>> > > > >> really
>>> > treat
>>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema" approach as a kind of "schema-first"?
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> [1]
>>> > > > >>
>>> > >
>>> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>:
>>> > > > >> >>
>>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the relation between
>>> > Ignite
>>> > > > and
>>> > > > >> >> ORM?
>>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of Ignite
>>> > > > >> >> (I
>>> > > haven't
>>> > > > >> >> seen
>>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the Ignite
>>> side to
>>> > > > >> support
>>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API which we
>>> > already
>>> > > > >> have.
>>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
>>> > > > >> >
>>> > > > >> >
>>> > > > >> > Good point, yes, if all the ORM integrations use Ignite SQL
>>> APIs
>>> > > > >> > internally, then they can easily translate an Entity object
>>> into
>>> > an
>>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE statement that lists all the object's fields.
>>> > Luckily,
>>> > > > >> > our
>>> > > > >> > Spring Data integration is already based on the Ignite SQL
>>> > > > >> > APIs
>>> > and
>>> > > > >> > needs
>>> > > > >> > to be improved once the schema-first approach is supported.
>>> That
>>> > > would
>>> > > > >> > solve a ton of usability issues.
>>> > > > >> >
>>> > > > >> > I would revise the Hibernate integration as well during the
>>> Ignite
>>> > > 3.0
>>> > > > >> dev
>>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say if it's used a lot but Spring Data is
>>> > > > >> > getting
>>> > > > traction
>>> > > > >> for
>>> > > > >> > sure.
>>> > > > >> >
>>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind, I'll loop you in as long as you've started
>>> > working
>>> > > > on
>>> > > > >> the
>>> > > > >> > Ignite support for Micornaut Data
>>> > > > >> > <
>>> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
>>> > > > and
>>> > > > >> > came across some challenges. Just watch this discussion.
>>> > > > >> > That's
>>> > what
>>> > > > is
>>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite 3.0.
>>> > > > >> >
>>> > > > >> >
>>> > > > >> > -
>>> > > > >> > Denis
>>> > > > >> >
>>> > > > >> >
>>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 5:11 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>> > > > >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > > >> >
>>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
>>> > > > >> >>
>>> > > > >> >> Generally speaking, I believe that the schema-first approach
>>> > > natively
>>> > > > >> >> addresses the issue if duplicate fields in key and value
>>> objects,
>>> > > > >> because
>>> > > > >> >> schema will be created for a cache, not for an object, as it
>>> > > happens
>>> > > > >> now.
>>> > > > >> >> Basically, the schema will define whether there is a primary
>>> key
>>> > or
>>> > > > >> >> not,
>>> > > > >> >> and which fields are included in case there is one. Any API
>>> that
>>> > we
>>> > > > >> would
>>> > > > >> >> have must be compliant with this, so it becomes fairly easy
>>> > > > >> >> to
>>> > work
>>> > > > >> >> with
>>> > > > >> >> data as with a set of records, rather than key-value pairs.
>>> > > > >> >>
>>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the relation between
>>> > Ignite
>>> > > > and
>>> > > > >> >> ORM?
>>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of Ignite
>>> > > > >> >> (I
>>> > > haven't
>>> > > > >> >> seen
>>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the Ignite
>>> side to
>>> > > > >> support
>>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API which we
>>> > already
>>> > > > >> have.
>>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
>>> > > > >> >>
>>> > > > >> >> -Val
>>> > > > >> >>
>>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:08 PM Denis Magda <
>>> dmagda@apache.org>
>>> > > > wrote:
>>> > > > >> >>
>>> > > > >> >> > Val,
>>> > > > >> >> >
>>> > > > >> >> > I would propose adding another point to the motivations
>>> > > > >> >> > list
>>> > > which
>>> > > > >> >> > is
>>> > > > >> >> > related to the ORM frameworks such as Spring Data,
>>> Hibernate,
>>> > > > >> Micronaut
>>> > > > >> >> and
>>> > > > >> >> > many others.
>>> > > > >> >> >
>>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the storage engine requires to distinguish key
>>> > objects
>>> > > > >> >> > from
>>> > > > >> >> the
>>> > > > >> >> > value ones that complicate the usage of Ignite with those
>>> ORM
>>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
>>> > > > >> >> > (especially if a key object comprises several fields).
>>> > > > >> >> > More
>>> on
>>> > > this
>>> > > > >> can
>>> > > > >> >> be
>>> > > > >> >> > found here:
>>> > > > >> >> >
>>> > > > >> >> >
>>> > > > >> >>
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
>>> > > > >> >> >
>>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice if the new schema-first approach allows us
>>> to
>>> > > work
>>> > > > >> with
>>> > > > >> >> > a
>>> > > > >> >> > single entity object when it comes to the ORMs. With no
>>> need to
>>> > > > >> >> > split
>>> > > > >> >> > the
>>> > > > >> >> > entity into a key and value. Just want to be sure that the
>>> > Ignite
>>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
>>> > > > >> >> > has
>>> > > > >> >> > all the essential public APIs that would support the
>>> > > single-entity
>>> > > > >> >> > based
>>> > > > >> >> > approach.
>>> > > > >> >> >
>>> > > > >> >> > What do you think?
>>> > > > >> >> >
>>> > > > >> >> > -
>>> > > > >> >> > Denis
>>> > > > >> >> >
>>> > > > >> >> >
>>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:50 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
>>> > > > >> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > > >> >> >
>>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
>>> > > > >> >> > >
>>> > > > >> >> > > One of the big changes proposed for Ignite 3.0 is the
>>> > so-called
>>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first approach". To add more clarity, I've
>>> > > > >> >> > > started
>>> > > > writing
>>> > > > >> >> > > the
>>> > > > >> >> > IEP
>>> > > > >> >> > > for this change:
>>> > > > >> >> > >
>>> > > > >> >> > >
>>> > > > >> >> >
>>> > > > >> >>
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
>>> > > > >> >> > >
>>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a look and let me know if there are any
>>> immediate
>>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
>>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions, or objections.
>>> > > > >> >> > >
>>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
>>> > > > >> >> > >
>>> > > > >> >> >
>>> > > > >> >>
>>> > > > >> >
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> --
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> Best regards,
>>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > --
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Best regards,
>>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>


-- 

Best regards,
Ivan Pavlukhin

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>]

Val, makes sense, thanks for explaining.

Agree that we need to have a separate discussion thread for the "table" and
"cache" terms substitution. I'll appreciate it if you start the thread
sharing pointers to any relevant IEPs and reasoning behind the suggested
change.

-
Denis


On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Denis,
>
> I guess the wording in the IEP is a little bit confusing. All it means is
> that you should not create nested POJOs, but rather inline fields into a
> single POJO that is mapped to a particular schema. In other words, nested
> POJOs are not supported.
>
> Alex, is this correct? Please let me know if I'm missing something.
>
> As for the "cache" term, I agree that it is outdated, but I'm not sure
> what we can replace it with. "Table" is tightly associated with SQL, but
> SQL is optional in our case. Do you want to create a separate discussion
> about this?
>
> -Val
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Val,
>>
>> I've checked the IEP again and have a few questions.
>>
>> Arbitrary nested objects and collections are not allowed as column values.
>> > Nested POJOs should either be inlined into schema, or stored as BLOBs
>>
>>
>> Could you provide a DDL code snippet showing how the inlining of POJOs is
>> supposed to work?
>>
>> Also, we keep using the terms "cache" and "table" throughout the IEP. Is
>> it
>> the right time to discuss an alternate name that would replace those too?
>> Personally, the "table" should stay and the "cache" should go considering
>> that SQL is one of the primary APIs in Ignite and that DDL is supported
>> out-of-the-box.
>>
>>
>> -
>> Denis
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Ivan,
>> >
>> > I see your point. I agree that with the automatic updates we step into
>> the
>> > schema-last territory.
>> >
>> > Actually, if we support automatic evolution, we can as well support
>> > creating a cache without schema and inferring it from the first insert.
>> In
>> > other words, we can have both "schema-first" and "schema-last" modes.
>> >
>> > Alexey, what do you think?
>> >
>> > -Val
>> >
>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
>> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Ivan,
>> > >
>> > > Thank you, I got your concern now. As it is mostly regarding the
>> > > terminology, I am absolutely fine with changing the name to whatever
>> fits
>> > > the approach best. Dynamic or evolving schema sounds great. I will
>> make
>> > > corresponding changes to the IEP once we settle on the name.
>> > >
>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в 11:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com>:
>> > >
>> > > > Hi Val,
>> > > >
>> > > > Thank you for your answer!
>> > > >
>> > > > My understanding is a little bit different. Yes, schema evolution
>> > > > definitely should be possible. But I see a main difference in "how
>> > > > schema is updated". I treat a common SQL approach schema-first.
>> Schema
>> > > > and data manipulation operations are clearly separated and it
>> enables
>> > > > interesting capabilities, e.g. preventing untended schema changes by
>> > > > mistaken data operations, restricting user permissions to change
>> > > > schema.
>> > > >
>> > > > > Schema-first means that schema exists in advance and all the
>> stored
>> > > data
>> > > > is compliant with it - that's exactly what is proposed.
>> > > >
>> > > > A schema-last approach mentioned in [1] also assumes that schema
>> > > > exists, but it is inferred from data. Is not it more similar to the
>> > > > proposing approach?
>> > > >
>> > > > And I would like to say, that my main concern so far is mostly about
>> > > > terminology. And I suppose if it confuses me then others might be
>> > > > confused as well. My feeling is closer to "dynamic or liquid or may
>> be
>> > > > evolving schema".
>> > > >
>> > > > [1]
>> > > >
>> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
>> > > >
>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47 GMT+03:00, Valentin Kulichenko <
>> > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I don't see an issue with that. Schema-first means that schema
>> exists
>> > > in
>> > > > > advance and all the stored data is compliant with it - that's
>> exactly
>> > > > what
>> > > > > is proposed. There are no restrictions prohibiting changes to the
>> > > schema.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -Val
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:52 PM Ivan Pavlukhin <
>> vololo100@gmail.com>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> Alexey,
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> I am a little bit confused with terminology. My understanding
>> > conforms
>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see part X Semi Structured Data). Can we really
>> > treat
>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema" approach as a kind of "schema-first"?
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> [1]
>> > > > >>
>> > >
>> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>:
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the relation between
>> > Ignite
>> > > > and
>> > > > >> >> ORM?
>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of Ignite (I
>> > > haven't
>> > > > >> >> seen
>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the Ignite
>> side to
>> > > > >> support
>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API which we
>> > already
>> > > > >> have.
>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > Good point, yes, if all the ORM integrations use Ignite SQL
>> APIs
>> > > > >> > internally, then they can easily translate an Entity object
>> into
>> > an
>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE statement that lists all the object's fields.
>> > Luckily,
>> > > > >> > our
>> > > > >> > Spring Data integration is already based on the Ignite SQL APIs
>> > and
>> > > > >> > needs
>> > > > >> > to be improved once the schema-first approach is supported.
>> That
>> > > would
>> > > > >> > solve a ton of usability issues.
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > I would revise the Hibernate integration as well during the
>> Ignite
>> > > 3.0
>> > > > >> dev
>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say if it's used a lot but Spring Data is getting
>> > > > traction
>> > > > >> for
>> > > > >> > sure.
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind, I'll loop you in as long as you've started
>> > working
>> > > > on
>> > > > >> the
>> > > > >> > Ignite support for Micornaut Data
>> > > > >> > <
>> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
>> > > > and
>> > > > >> > came across some challenges. Just watch this discussion. That's
>> > what
>> > > > is
>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite 3.0.
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > -
>> > > > >> > Denis
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 5:11 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
>> > > > >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> Generally speaking, I believe that the schema-first approach
>> > > natively
>> > > > >> >> addresses the issue if duplicate fields in key and value
>> objects,
>> > > > >> because
>> > > > >> >> schema will be created for a cache, not for an object, as it
>> > > happens
>> > > > >> now.
>> > > > >> >> Basically, the schema will define whether there is a primary
>> key
>> > or
>> > > > >> >> not,
>> > > > >> >> and which fields are included in case there is one. Any API
>> that
>> > we
>> > > > >> would
>> > > > >> >> have must be compliant with this, so it becomes fairly easy to
>> > work
>> > > > >> >> with
>> > > > >> >> data as with a set of records, rather than key-value pairs.
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the relation between
>> > Ignite
>> > > > and
>> > > > >> >> ORM?
>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of Ignite (I
>> > > haven't
>> > > > >> >> seen
>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the Ignite
>> side to
>> > > > >> support
>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API which we
>> > already
>> > > > >> have.
>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> -Val
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:08 PM Denis Magda <
>> dmagda@apache.org>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >> > Val,
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> > I would propose adding another point to the motivations list
>> > > which
>> > > > >> >> > is
>> > > > >> >> > related to the ORM frameworks such as Spring Data,
>> Hibernate,
>> > > > >> Micronaut
>> > > > >> >> and
>> > > > >> >> > many others.
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the storage engine requires to distinguish key
>> > objects
>> > > > >> >> > from
>> > > > >> >> the
>> > > > >> >> > value ones that complicate the usage of Ignite with those
>> ORM
>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
>> > > > >> >> > (especially if a key object comprises several fields). More
>> on
>> > > this
>> > > > >> can
>> > > > >> >> be
>> > > > >> >> > found here:
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice if the new schema-first approach allows us
>> to
>> > > work
>> > > > >> with
>> > > > >> >> > a
>> > > > >> >> > single entity object when it comes to the ORMs. With no
>> need to
>> > > > >> >> > split
>> > > > >> >> > the
>> > > > >> >> > entity into a key and value. Just want to be sure that the
>> > Ignite
>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
>> > > > >> >> > has
>> > > > >> >> > all the essential public APIs that would support the
>> > > single-entity
>> > > > >> >> > based
>> > > > >> >> > approach.
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> > What do you think?
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> > -
>> > > > >> >> > Denis
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:50 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
>> > > > >> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
>> > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > >> >> > > One of the big changes proposed for Ignite 3.0 is the
>> > so-called
>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first approach". To add more clarity, I've started
>> > > > writing
>> > > > >> >> > > the
>> > > > >> >> > IEP
>> > > > >> >> > > for this change:
>> > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
>> > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a look and let me know if there are any
>> immediate
>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions, or objections.
>> > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
>> > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> --
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Best regards,
>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > >
>> > > > Best regards,
>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Valentin Kulichenko <va...@gmail.com>]

Hi Denis,

I guess the wording in the IEP is a little bit confusing. All it means is
that you should not create nested POJOs, but rather inline fields into a
single POJO that is mapped to a particular schema. In other words, nested
POJOs are not supported.

Alex, is this correct? Please let me know if I'm missing something.

As for the "cache" term, I agree that it is outdated, but I'm not sure what
we can replace it with. "Table" is tightly associated with SQL, but SQL is
optional in our case. Do you want to create a separate discussion about
this?

-Val

On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:

> Val,
>
> I've checked the IEP again and have a few questions.
>
> Arbitrary nested objects and collections are not allowed as column values.
> > Nested POJOs should either be inlined into schema, or stored as BLOBs
>
>
> Could you provide a DDL code snippet showing how the inlining of POJOs is
> supposed to work?
>
> Also, we keep using the terms "cache" and "table" throughout the IEP. Is it
> the right time to discuss an alternate name that would replace those too?
> Personally, the "table" should stay and the "cache" should go considering
> that SQL is one of the primary APIs in Ignite and that DDL is supported
> out-of-the-box.
>
>
> -
> Denis
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ivan,
> >
> > I see your point. I agree that with the automatic updates we step into
> the
> > schema-last territory.
> >
> > Actually, if we support automatic evolution, we can as well support
> > creating a cache without schema and inferring it from the first insert.
> In
> > other words, we can have both "schema-first" and "schema-last" modes.
> >
> > Alexey, what do you think?
> >
> > -Val
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Ivan,
> > >
> > > Thank you, I got your concern now. As it is mostly regarding the
> > > terminology, I am absolutely fine with changing the name to whatever
> fits
> > > the approach best. Dynamic or evolving schema sounds great. I will make
> > > corresponding changes to the IEP once we settle on the name.
> > >
> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в 11:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > Hi Val,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for your answer!
> > > >
> > > > My understanding is a little bit different. Yes, schema evolution
> > > > definitely should be possible. But I see a main difference in "how
> > > > schema is updated". I treat a common SQL approach schema-first.
> Schema
> > > > and data manipulation operations are clearly separated and it enables
> > > > interesting capabilities, e.g. preventing untended schema changes by
> > > > mistaken data operations, restricting user permissions to change
> > > > schema.
> > > >
> > > > > Schema-first means that schema exists in advance and all the stored
> > > data
> > > > is compliant with it - that's exactly what is proposed.
> > > >
> > > > A schema-last approach mentioned in [1] also assumes that schema
> > > > exists, but it is inferred from data. Is not it more similar to the
> > > > proposing approach?
> > > >
> > > > And I would like to say, that my main concern so far is mostly about
> > > > terminology. And I suppose if it confuses me then others might be
> > > > confused as well. My feeling is closer to "dynamic or liquid or may
> be
> > > > evolving schema".
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > >
> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47 GMT+03:00, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't see an issue with that. Schema-first means that schema
> exists
> > > in
> > > > > advance and all the stored data is compliant with it - that's
> exactly
> > > > what
> > > > > is proposed. There are no restrictions prohibiting changes to the
> > > schema.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Val
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:52 PM Ivan Pavlukhin <vololo100@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Alexey,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I am a little bit confused with terminology. My understanding
> > conforms
> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see part X Semi Structured Data). Can we really
> > treat
> > > > >> a "dynamic schema" approach as a kind of "schema-first"?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> [1]
> > > > >>
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the relation between
> > Ignite
> > > > and
> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of Ignite (I
> > > haven't
> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the Ignite side
> to
> > > > >> support
> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API which we
> > already
> > > > >> have.
> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Good point, yes, if all the ORM integrations use Ignite SQL APIs
> > > > >> > internally, then they can easily translate an Entity object into
> > an
> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE statement that lists all the object's fields.
> > Luckily,
> > > > >> > our
> > > > >> > Spring Data integration is already based on the Ignite SQL APIs
> > and
> > > > >> > needs
> > > > >> > to be improved once the schema-first approach is supported. That
> > > would
> > > > >> > solve a ton of usability issues.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I would revise the Hibernate integration as well during the
> Ignite
> > > 3.0
> > > > >> dev
> > > > >> > phase. Can't say if it's used a lot but Spring Data is getting
> > > > traction
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> > sure.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind, I'll loop you in as long as you've started
> > working
> > > > on
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > Ignite support for Micornaut Data
> > > > >> > <
> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > > and
> > > > >> > came across some challenges. Just watch this discussion. That's
> > what
> > > > is
> > > > >> > coming in Ignite 3.0.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > -
> > > > >> > Denis
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 5:11 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Generally speaking, I believe that the schema-first approach
> > > natively
> > > > >> >> addresses the issue if duplicate fields in key and value
> objects,
> > > > >> because
> > > > >> >> schema will be created for a cache, not for an object, as it
> > > happens
> > > > >> now.
> > > > >> >> Basically, the schema will define whether there is a primary
> key
> > or
> > > > >> >> not,
> > > > >> >> and which fields are included in case there is one. Any API
> that
> > we
> > > > >> would
> > > > >> >> have must be compliant with this, so it becomes fairly easy to
> > work
> > > > >> >> with
> > > > >> >> data as with a set of records, rather than key-value pairs.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the relation between
> > Ignite
> > > > and
> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of Ignite (I
> > > haven't
> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the Ignite side
> to
> > > > >> support
> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API which we
> > already
> > > > >> have.
> > > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> -Val
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:08 PM Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> > Val,
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > I would propose adding another point to the motivations list
> > > which
> > > > >> >> > is
> > > > >> >> > related to the ORM frameworks such as Spring Data, Hibernate,
> > > > >> Micronaut
> > > > >> >> and
> > > > >> >> > many others.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > Presently, the storage engine requires to distinguish key
> > objects
> > > > >> >> > from
> > > > >> >> the
> > > > >> >> > value ones that complicate the usage of Ignite with those ORM
> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> > > > >> >> > (especially if a key object comprises several fields). More
> on
> > > this
> > > > >> can
> > > > >> >> be
> > > > >> >> > found here:
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > It will be nice if the new schema-first approach allows us to
> > > work
> > > > >> with
> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > >> >> > single entity object when it comes to the ORMs. With no need
> to
> > > > >> >> > split
> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > >> >> > entity into a key and value. Just want to be sure that the
> > Ignite
> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > > > >> >> > has
> > > > >> >> > all the essential public APIs that would support the
> > > single-entity
> > > > >> >> > based
> > > > >> >> > approach.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > What do you think?
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > -
> > > > >> >> > Denis
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:50 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > >> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > One of the big changes proposed for Ignite 3.0 is the
> > so-called
> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first approach". To add more clarity, I've started
> > > > writing
> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > > > >> >> > > for this change:
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > Please take a look and let me know if there are any
> immediate
> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > > > >> >> > > suggestions, or objections.
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>]

Val,

I've checked the IEP again and have a few questions.

Arbitrary nested objects and collections are not allowed as column values.
> Nested POJOs should either be inlined into schema, or stored as BLOBs


Could you provide a DDL code snippet showing how the inlining of POJOs is
supposed to work?

Also, we keep using the terms "cache" and "table" throughout the IEP. Is it
the right time to discuss an alternate name that would replace those too?
Personally, the "table" should stay and the "cache" should go considering
that SQL is one of the primary APIs in Ignite and that DDL is supported
out-of-the-box.


-
Denis


On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ivan,
>
> I see your point. I agree that with the automatic updates we step into the
> schema-last territory.
>
> Actually, if we support automatic evolution, we can as well support
> creating a cache without schema and inferring it from the first insert. In
> other words, we can have both "schema-first" and "schema-last" modes.
>
> Alexey, what do you think?
>
> -Val
>
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Ivan,
> >
> > Thank you, I got your concern now. As it is mostly regarding the
> > terminology, I am absolutely fine with changing the name to whatever fits
> > the approach best. Dynamic or evolving schema sounds great. I will make
> > corresponding changes to the IEP once we settle on the name.
> >
> > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в 11:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Hi Val,
> > >
> > > Thank you for your answer!
> > >
> > > My understanding is a little bit different. Yes, schema evolution
> > > definitely should be possible. But I see a main difference in "how
> > > schema is updated". I treat a common SQL approach schema-first. Schema
> > > and data manipulation operations are clearly separated and it enables
> > > interesting capabilities, e.g. preventing untended schema changes by
> > > mistaken data operations, restricting user permissions to change
> > > schema.
> > >
> > > > Schema-first means that schema exists in advance and all the stored
> > data
> > > is compliant with it - that's exactly what is proposed.
> > >
> > > A schema-last approach mentioned in [1] also assumes that schema
> > > exists, but it is inferred from data. Is not it more similar to the
> > > proposing approach?
> > >
> > > And I would like to say, that my main concern so far is mostly about
> > > terminology. And I suppose if it confuses me then others might be
> > > confused as well. My feeling is closer to "dynamic or liquid or may be
> > > evolving schema".
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > >
> > > 2020-09-07 0:47 GMT+03:00, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > >
> > > > I don't see an issue with that. Schema-first means that schema exists
> > in
> > > > advance and all the stored data is compliant with it - that's exactly
> > > what
> > > > is proposed. There are no restrictions prohibiting changes to the
> > schema.
> > > >
> > > > -Val
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:52 PM Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Alexey,
> > > >>
> > > >> I am a little bit confused with terminology. My understanding
> conforms
> > > >> to a survey [1] (see part X Semi Structured Data). Can we really
> treat
> > > >> a "dynamic schema" approach as a kind of "schema-first"?
> > > >>
> > > >> [1]
> > > >>
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > >>
> > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the relation between
> Ignite
> > > and
> > > >> >> ORM?
> > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of Ignite (I
> > haven't
> > > >> >> seen
> > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the Ignite side to
> > > >> support
> > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API which we
> already
> > > >> have.
> > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Good point, yes, if all the ORM integrations use Ignite SQL APIs
> > > >> > internally, then they can easily translate an Entity object into
> an
> > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE statement that lists all the object's fields.
> Luckily,
> > > >> > our
> > > >> > Spring Data integration is already based on the Ignite SQL APIs
> and
> > > >> > needs
> > > >> > to be improved once the schema-first approach is supported. That
> > would
> > > >> > solve a ton of usability issues.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I would revise the Hibernate integration as well during the Ignite
> > 3.0
> > > >> dev
> > > >> > phase. Can't say if it's used a lot but Spring Data is getting
> > > traction
> > > >> for
> > > >> > sure.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > @Michael Pollind, I'll loop you in as long as you've started
> working
> > > on
> > > >> the
> > > >> > Ignite support for Micornaut Data
> > > >> > <
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > and
> > > >> > came across some challenges. Just watch this discussion. That's
> what
> > > is
> > > >> > coming in Ignite 3.0.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > -
> > > >> > Denis
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 5:11 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Generally speaking, I believe that the schema-first approach
> > natively
> > > >> >> addresses the issue if duplicate fields in key and value objects,
> > > >> because
> > > >> >> schema will be created for a cache, not for an object, as it
> > happens
> > > >> now.
> > > >> >> Basically, the schema will define whether there is a primary key
> or
> > > >> >> not,
> > > >> >> and which fields are included in case there is one. Any API that
> we
> > > >> would
> > > >> >> have must be compliant with this, so it becomes fairly easy to
> work
> > > >> >> with
> > > >> >> data as with a set of records, rather than key-value pairs.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the relation between
> Ignite
> > > and
> > > >> >> ORM?
> > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of Ignite (I
> > haven't
> > > >> >> seen
> > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the Ignite side to
> > > >> support
> > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API which we
> already
> > > >> have.
> > > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> -Val
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:08 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > Val,
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > I would propose adding another point to the motivations list
> > which
> > > >> >> > is
> > > >> >> > related to the ORM frameworks such as Spring Data, Hibernate,
> > > >> Micronaut
> > > >> >> and
> > > >> >> > many others.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > Presently, the storage engine requires to distinguish key
> objects
> > > >> >> > from
> > > >> >> the
> > > >> >> > value ones that complicate the usage of Ignite with those ORM
> > > >> >> > frameworks
> > > >> >> > (especially if a key object comprises several fields). More on
> > this
> > > >> can
> > > >> >> be
> > > >> >> > found here:
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > It will be nice if the new schema-first approach allows us to
> > work
> > > >> with
> > > >> >> > a
> > > >> >> > single entity object when it comes to the ORMs. With no need to
> > > >> >> > split
> > > >> >> > the
> > > >> >> > entity into a key and value. Just want to be sure that the
> Ignite
> > > >> >> > 3.0
> > > >> >> > has
> > > >> >> > all the essential public APIs that would support the
> > single-entity
> > > >> >> > based
> > > >> >> > approach.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > What do you think?
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > -
> > > >> >> > Denis
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:50 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > >> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > One of the big changes proposed for Ignite 3.0 is the
> so-called
> > > >> >> > > "schema-first approach". To add more clarity, I've started
> > > writing
> > > >> >> > > the
> > > >> >> > IEP
> > > >> >> > > for this change:
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > Please take a look and let me know if there are any immediate
> > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > > >> >> > > suggestions, or objections.
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > -Val
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >>
> > > >> Best regards,
> > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > >
> >
>

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Valentin Kulichenko <va...@gmail.com>]

Ivan,

I see your point. I agree that with the automatic updates we step into the
schema-last territory.

Actually, if we support automatic evolution, we can as well support
creating a cache without schema and inferring it from the first insert. In
other words, we can have both "schema-first" and "schema-last" modes.

Alexey, what do you think?

-Val

On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59 AM Alexey Goncharuk <al...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Ivan,
>
> Thank you, I got your concern now. As it is mostly regarding the
> terminology, I am absolutely fine with changing the name to whatever fits
> the approach best. Dynamic or evolving schema sounds great. I will make
> corresponding changes to the IEP once we settle on the name.
>
> пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в 11:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Hi Val,
> >
> > Thank you for your answer!
> >
> > My understanding is a little bit different. Yes, schema evolution
> > definitely should be possible. But I see a main difference in "how
> > schema is updated". I treat a common SQL approach schema-first. Schema
> > and data manipulation operations are clearly separated and it enables
> > interesting capabilities, e.g. preventing untended schema changes by
> > mistaken data operations, restricting user permissions to change
> > schema.
> >
> > > Schema-first means that schema exists in advance and all the stored
> data
> > is compliant with it - that's exactly what is proposed.
> >
> > A schema-last approach mentioned in [1] also assumes that schema
> > exists, but it is inferred from data. Is not it more similar to the
> > proposing approach?
> >
> > And I would like to say, that my main concern so far is mostly about
> > terminology. And I suppose if it confuses me then others might be
> > confused as well. My feeling is closer to "dynamic or liquid or may be
> > evolving schema".
> >
> > [1]
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> >
> > 2020-09-07 0:47 GMT+03:00, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > > Hi Ivan,
> > >
> > > I don't see an issue with that. Schema-first means that schema exists
> in
> > > advance and all the stored data is compliant with it - that's exactly
> > what
> > > is proposed. There are no restrictions prohibiting changes to the
> schema.
> > >
> > > -Val
> > >
> > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:52 PM Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Alexey,
> > >>
> > >> I am a little bit confused with terminology. My understanding conforms
> > >> to a survey [1] (see part X Semi Structured Data). Can we really treat
> > >> a "dynamic schema" approach as a kind of "schema-first"?
> > >>
> > >> [1]
> > >>
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > >>
> > >> 2020-09-02 1:53 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the relation between Ignite
> > and
> > >> >> ORM?
> > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of Ignite (I
> haven't
> > >> >> seen
> > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the Ignite side to
> > >> support
> > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API which we already
> > >> have.
> > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Good point, yes, if all the ORM integrations use Ignite SQL APIs
> > >> > internally, then they can easily translate an Entity object into an
> > >> > INSERT/UPDATE statement that lists all the object's fields. Luckily,
> > >> > our
> > >> > Spring Data integration is already based on the Ignite SQL APIs and
> > >> > needs
> > >> > to be improved once the schema-first approach is supported. That
> would
> > >> > solve a ton of usability issues.
> > >> >
> > >> > I would revise the Hibernate integration as well during the Ignite
> 3.0
> > >> dev
> > >> > phase. Can't say if it's used a lot but Spring Data is getting
> > traction
> > >> for
> > >> > sure.
> > >> >
> > >> > @Michael Pollind, I'll loop you in as long as you've started working
> > on
> > >> the
> > >> > Ignite support for Micornaut Data
> > >> > <https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > and
> > >> > came across some challenges. Just watch this discussion. That's what
> > is
> > >> > coming in Ignite 3.0.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > -
> > >> > Denis
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 5:11 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Generally speaking, I believe that the schema-first approach
> natively
> > >> >> addresses the issue if duplicate fields in key and value objects,
> > >> because
> > >> >> schema will be created for a cache, not for an object, as it
> happens
> > >> now.
> > >> >> Basically, the schema will define whether there is a primary key or
> > >> >> not,
> > >> >> and which fields are included in case there is one. Any API that we
> > >> would
> > >> >> have must be compliant with this, so it becomes fairly easy to work
> > >> >> with
> > >> >> data as with a set of records, rather than key-value pairs.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the relation between Ignite
> > and
> > >> >> ORM?
> > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of Ignite (I
> haven't
> > >> >> seen
> > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the Ignite side to
> > >> support
> > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API which we already
> > >> have.
> > >> >> Am I missing something?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> -Val
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:08 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > Val,
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > I would propose adding another point to the motivations list
> which
> > >> >> > is
> > >> >> > related to the ORM frameworks such as Spring Data, Hibernate,
> > >> Micronaut
> > >> >> and
> > >> >> > many others.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Presently, the storage engine requires to distinguish key objects
> > >> >> > from
> > >> >> the
> > >> >> > value ones that complicate the usage of Ignite with those ORM
> > >> >> > frameworks
> > >> >> > (especially if a key object comprises several fields). More on
> this
> > >> can
> > >> >> be
> > >> >> > found here:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >>
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > It will be nice if the new schema-first approach allows us to
> work
> > >> with
> > >> >> > a
> > >> >> > single entity object when it comes to the ORMs. With no need to
> > >> >> > split
> > >> >> > the
> > >> >> > entity into a key and value. Just want to be sure that the Ignite
> > >> >> > 3.0
> > >> >> > has
> > >> >> > all the essential public APIs that would support the
> single-entity
> > >> >> > based
> > >> >> > approach.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > What do you think?
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > -
> > >> >> > Denis
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:50 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > >> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > One of the big changes proposed for Ignite 3.0 is the so-called
> > >> >> > > "schema-first approach". To add more clarity, I've started
> > writing
> > >> >> > > the
> > >> >> > IEP
> > >> >> > > for this change:
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > Please take a look and let me know if there are any immediate
> > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > >> >> > > suggestions, or objections.
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > -Val
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >> Best regards,
> > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Ivan Pavlukhin
> >
>

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Alexey Goncharuk <al...@gmail.com>]

Ivan,

Thank you, I got your concern now. As it is mostly regarding the
terminology, I am absolutely fine with changing the name to whatever fits
the approach best. Dynamic or evolving schema sounds great. I will make
corresponding changes to the IEP once we settle on the name.

пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в 11:33, Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com>:

> Hi Val,
>
> Thank you for your answer!
>
> My understanding is a little bit different. Yes, schema evolution
> definitely should be possible. But I see a main difference in "how
> schema is updated". I treat a common SQL approach schema-first. Schema
> and data manipulation operations are clearly separated and it enables
> interesting capabilities, e.g. preventing untended schema changes by
> mistaken data operations, restricting user permissions to change
> schema.
>
> > Schema-first means that schema exists in advance and all the stored data
> is compliant with it - that's exactly what is proposed.
>
> A schema-last approach mentioned in [1] also assumes that schema
> exists, but it is inferred from data. Is not it more similar to the
> proposing approach?
>
> And I would like to say, that my main concern so far is mostly about
> terminology. And I suppose if it confuses me then others might be
> confused as well. My feeling is closer to "dynamic or liquid or may be
> evolving schema".
>
> [1]
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
>
> 2020-09-07 0:47 GMT+03:00, Valentin Kulichenko <
> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com>:
> > Hi Ivan,
> >
> > I don't see an issue with that. Schema-first means that schema exists in
> > advance and all the stored data is compliant with it - that's exactly
> what
> > is proposed. There are no restrictions prohibiting changes to the schema.
> >
> > -Val
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:52 PM Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Alexey,
> >>
> >> I am a little bit confused with terminology. My understanding conforms
> >> to a survey [1] (see part X Semi Structured Data). Can we really treat
> >> a "dynamic schema" approach as a kind of "schema-first"?
> >>
> >> [1]
> >> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> >>
> >> 2020-09-02 1:53 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>:
> >> >>
> >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the relation between Ignite
> and
> >> >> ORM?
> >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of Ignite (I haven't
> >> >> seen
> >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the Ignite side to
> >> support
> >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API which we already
> >> have.
> >> >> Am I missing something?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Good point, yes, if all the ORM integrations use Ignite SQL APIs
> >> > internally, then they can easily translate an Entity object into an
> >> > INSERT/UPDATE statement that lists all the object's fields. Luckily,
> >> > our
> >> > Spring Data integration is already based on the Ignite SQL APIs and
> >> > needs
> >> > to be improved once the schema-first approach is supported. That would
> >> > solve a ton of usability issues.
> >> >
> >> > I would revise the Hibernate integration as well during the Ignite 3.0
> >> dev
> >> > phase. Can't say if it's used a lot but Spring Data is getting
> traction
> >> for
> >> > sure.
> >> >
> >> > @Michael Pollind, I'll loop you in as long as you've started working
> on
> >> the
> >> > Ignite support for Micornaut Data
> >> > <https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> and
> >> > came across some challenges. Just watch this discussion. That's what
> is
> >> > coming in Ignite 3.0.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > -
> >> > Denis
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 5:11 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi Denis,
> >> >>
> >> >> Generally speaking, I believe that the schema-first approach natively
> >> >> addresses the issue if duplicate fields in key and value objects,
> >> because
> >> >> schema will be created for a cache, not for an object, as it happens
> >> now.
> >> >> Basically, the schema will define whether there is a primary key or
> >> >> not,
> >> >> and which fields are included in case there is one. Any API that we
> >> would
> >> >> have must be compliant with this, so it becomes fairly easy to work
> >> >> with
> >> >> data as with a set of records, rather than key-value pairs.
> >> >>
> >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the relation between Ignite
> and
> >> >> ORM?
> >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of Ignite (I haven't
> >> >> seen
> >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the Ignite side to
> >> support
> >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API which we already
> >> have.
> >> >> Am I missing something?
> >> >>
> >> >> -Val
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:08 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Val,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I would propose adding another point to the motivations list which
> >> >> > is
> >> >> > related to the ORM frameworks such as Spring Data, Hibernate,
> >> Micronaut
> >> >> and
> >> >> > many others.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Presently, the storage engine requires to distinguish key objects
> >> >> > from
> >> >> the
> >> >> > value ones that complicate the usage of Ignite with those ORM
> >> >> > frameworks
> >> >> > (especially if a key object comprises several fields). More on this
> >> can
> >> >> be
> >> >> > found here:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It will be nice if the new schema-first approach allows us to work
> >> with
> >> >> > a
> >> >> > single entity object when it comes to the ORMs. With no need to
> >> >> > split
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > entity into a key and value. Just want to be sure that the Ignite
> >> >> > 3.0
> >> >> > has
> >> >> > all the essential public APIs that would support the single-entity
> >> >> > based
> >> >> > approach.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What do you think?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > -
> >> >> > Denis
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:50 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> >> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > Igniters,
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > One of the big changes proposed for Ignite 3.0 is the so-called
> >> >> > > "schema-first approach". To add more clarity, I've started
> writing
> >> >> > > the
> >> >> > IEP
> >> >> > > for this change:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Please take a look and let me know if there are any immediate
> >> >> > > thoughts,
> >> >> > > suggestions, or objections.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > -Val
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
> Ivan Pavlukhin
>

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com>]

Hi Val,

Thank you for your answer!

My understanding is a little bit different. Yes, schema evolution
definitely should be possible. But I see a main difference in "how
schema is updated". I treat a common SQL approach schema-first. Schema
and data manipulation operations are clearly separated and it enables
interesting capabilities, e.g. preventing untended schema changes by
mistaken data operations, restricting user permissions to change
schema.

> Schema-first means that schema exists in advance and all the stored data is compliant with it - that's exactly what is proposed.

A schema-last approach mentioned in [1] also assumes that schema
exists, but it is inferred from data. Is not it more similar to the
proposing approach?

And I would like to say, that my main concern so far is mostly about
terminology. And I suppose if it confuses me then others might be
confused as well. My feeling is closer to "dynamic or liquid or may be
evolving schema".

[1] https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf

2020-09-07 0:47 GMT+03:00, Valentin Kulichenko <va...@gmail.com>:
> Hi Ivan,
>
> I don't see an issue with that. Schema-first means that schema exists in
> advance and all the stored data is compliant with it - that's exactly what
> is proposed. There are no restrictions prohibiting changes to the schema.
>
> -Val
>
> On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:52 PM Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Alexey,
>>
>> I am a little bit confused with terminology. My understanding conforms
>> to a survey [1] (see part X Semi Structured Data). Can we really treat
>> a "dynamic schema" approach as a kind of "schema-first"?
>>
>> [1]
>> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
>>
>> 2020-09-02 1:53 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>:
>> >>
>> >> However, could you please elaborate on the relation between Ignite and
>> >> ORM?
>> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of Ignite (I haven't
>> >> seen
>> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the Ignite side to
>> support
>> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API which we already
>> have.
>> >> Am I missing something?
>> >
>> >
>> > Good point, yes, if all the ORM integrations use Ignite SQL APIs
>> > internally, then they can easily translate an Entity object into an
>> > INSERT/UPDATE statement that lists all the object's fields. Luckily,
>> > our
>> > Spring Data integration is already based on the Ignite SQL APIs and
>> > needs
>> > to be improved once the schema-first approach is supported. That would
>> > solve a ton of usability issues.
>> >
>> > I would revise the Hibernate integration as well during the Ignite 3.0
>> dev
>> > phase. Can't say if it's used a lot but Spring Data is getting traction
>> for
>> > sure.
>> >
>> > @Michael Pollind, I'll loop you in as long as you've started working on
>> the
>> > Ignite support for Micornaut Data
>> > <https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/> and
>> > came across some challenges. Just watch this discussion. That's what is
>> > coming in Ignite 3.0.
>> >
>> >
>> > -
>> > Denis
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 5:11 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
>> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Denis,
>> >>
>> >> Generally speaking, I believe that the schema-first approach natively
>> >> addresses the issue if duplicate fields in key and value objects,
>> because
>> >> schema will be created for a cache, not for an object, as it happens
>> now.
>> >> Basically, the schema will define whether there is a primary key or
>> >> not,
>> >> and which fields are included in case there is one. Any API that we
>> would
>> >> have must be compliant with this, so it becomes fairly easy to work
>> >> with
>> >> data as with a set of records, rather than key-value pairs.
>> >>
>> >> However, could you please elaborate on the relation between Ignite and
>> >> ORM?
>> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of Ignite (I haven't
>> >> seen
>> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the Ignite side to
>> support
>> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API which we already
>> have.
>> >> Am I missing something?
>> >>
>> >> -Val
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:08 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Val,
>> >> >
>> >> > I would propose adding another point to the motivations list which
>> >> > is
>> >> > related to the ORM frameworks such as Spring Data, Hibernate,
>> Micronaut
>> >> and
>> >> > many others.
>> >> >
>> >> > Presently, the storage engine requires to distinguish key objects
>> >> > from
>> >> the
>> >> > value ones that complicate the usage of Ignite with those ORM
>> >> > frameworks
>> >> > (especially if a key object comprises several fields). More on this
>> can
>> >> be
>> >> > found here:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
>> >> >
>> >> > It will be nice if the new schema-first approach allows us to work
>> with
>> >> > a
>> >> > single entity object when it comes to the ORMs. With no need to
>> >> > split
>> >> > the
>> >> > entity into a key and value. Just want to be sure that the Ignite
>> >> > 3.0
>> >> > has
>> >> > all the essential public APIs that would support the single-entity
>> >> > based
>> >> > approach.
>> >> >
>> >> > What do you think?
>> >> >
>> >> > -
>> >> > Denis
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:50 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
>> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Igniters,
>> >> > >
>> >> > > One of the big changes proposed for Ignite 3.0 is the so-called
>> >> > > "schema-first approach". To add more clarity, I've started writing
>> >> > > the
>> >> > IEP
>> >> > > for this change:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Please take a look and let me know if there are any immediate
>> >> > > thoughts,
>> >> > > suggestions, or objections.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > -Val
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Ivan Pavlukhin
>>
>


-- 

Best regards,
Ivan Pavlukhin

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Valentin Kulichenko <va...@gmail.com>]

Hi Ivan,

I don't see an issue with that. Schema-first means that schema exists in
advance and all the stored data is compliant with it - that's exactly what
is proposed. There are no restrictions prohibiting changes to the schema.

-Val

On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:52 PM Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Alexey,
>
> I am a little bit confused with terminology. My understanding conforms
> to a survey [1] (see part X Semi Structured Data). Can we really treat
> a "dynamic schema" approach as a kind of "schema-first"?
>
> [1]
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
>
> 2020-09-02 1:53 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>:
> >>
> >> However, could you please elaborate on the relation between Ignite and
> >> ORM?
> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of Ignite (I haven't
> >> seen
> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the Ignite side to
> support
> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API which we already
> have.
> >> Am I missing something?
> >
> >
> > Good point, yes, if all the ORM integrations use Ignite SQL APIs
> > internally, then they can easily translate an Entity object into an
> > INSERT/UPDATE statement that lists all the object's fields. Luckily, our
> > Spring Data integration is already based on the Ignite SQL APIs and needs
> > to be improved once the schema-first approach is supported. That would
> > solve a ton of usability issues.
> >
> > I would revise the Hibernate integration as well during the Ignite 3.0
> dev
> > phase. Can't say if it's used a lot but Spring Data is getting traction
> for
> > sure.
> >
> > @Michael Pollind, I'll loop you in as long as you've started working on
> the
> > Ignite support for Micornaut Data
> > <https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/> and
> > came across some challenges. Just watch this discussion. That's what is
> > coming in Ignite 3.0.
> >
> >
> > -
> > Denis
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 5:11 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Denis,
> >>
> >> Generally speaking, I believe that the schema-first approach natively
> >> addresses the issue if duplicate fields in key and value objects,
> because
> >> schema will be created for a cache, not for an object, as it happens
> now.
> >> Basically, the schema will define whether there is a primary key or not,
> >> and which fields are included in case there is one. Any API that we
> would
> >> have must be compliant with this, so it becomes fairly easy to work with
> >> data as with a set of records, rather than key-value pairs.
> >>
> >> However, could you please elaborate on the relation between Ignite and
> >> ORM?
> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of Ignite (I haven't
> >> seen
> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the Ignite side to
> support
> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API which we already
> have.
> >> Am I missing something?
> >>
> >> -Val
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:08 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Val,
> >> >
> >> > I would propose adding another point to the motivations list which is
> >> > related to the ORM frameworks such as Spring Data, Hibernate,
> Micronaut
> >> and
> >> > many others.
> >> >
> >> > Presently, the storage engine requires to distinguish key objects from
> >> the
> >> > value ones that complicate the usage of Ignite with those ORM
> >> > frameworks
> >> > (especially if a key object comprises several fields). More on this
> can
> >> be
> >> > found here:
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> >> >
> >> > It will be nice if the new schema-first approach allows us to work
> with
> >> > a
> >> > single entity object when it comes to the ORMs. With no need to split
> >> > the
> >> > entity into a key and value. Just want to be sure that the Ignite 3.0
> >> > has
> >> > all the essential public APIs that would support the single-entity
> >> > based
> >> > approach.
> >> >
> >> > What do you think?
> >> >
> >> > -
> >> > Denis
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:50 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> >> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Igniters,
> >> > >
> >> > > One of the big changes proposed for Ignite 3.0 is the so-called
> >> > > "schema-first approach". To add more clarity, I've started writing
> >> > > the
> >> > IEP
> >> > > for this change:
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> >> > >
> >> > > Please take a look and let me know if there are any immediate
> >> > > thoughts,
> >> > > suggestions, or objections.
> >> > >
> >> > > -Val
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
> Ivan Pavlukhin
>

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Ivan Pavlukhin <vo...@gmail.com>]

Alexey,

I am a little bit confused with terminology. My understanding conforms
to a survey [1] (see part X Semi Structured Data). Can we really treat
a "dynamic schema" approach as a kind of "schema-first"?

[1] https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf

2020-09-02 1:53 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>:
>>
>> However, could you please elaborate on the relation between Ignite and
>> ORM?
>> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of Ignite (I haven't
>> seen
>> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the Ignite side to support
>> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API which we already have.
>> Am I missing something?
>
>
> Good point, yes, if all the ORM integrations use Ignite SQL APIs
> internally, then they can easily translate an Entity object into an
> INSERT/UPDATE statement that lists all the object's fields. Luckily, our
> Spring Data integration is already based on the Ignite SQL APIs and needs
> to be improved once the schema-first approach is supported. That would
> solve a ton of usability issues.
>
> I would revise the Hibernate integration as well during the Ignite 3.0 dev
> phase. Can't say if it's used a lot but Spring Data is getting traction for
> sure.
>
> @Michael Pollind, I'll loop you in as long as you've started working on the
> Ignite support for Micornaut Data
> <https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/> and
> came across some challenges. Just watch this discussion. That's what is
> coming in Ignite 3.0.
>
>
> -
> Denis
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 5:11 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Denis,
>>
>> Generally speaking, I believe that the schema-first approach natively
>> addresses the issue if duplicate fields in key and value objects, because
>> schema will be created for a cache, not for an object, as it happens now.
>> Basically, the schema will define whether there is a primary key or not,
>> and which fields are included in case there is one. Any API that we would
>> have must be compliant with this, so it becomes fairly easy to work with
>> data as with a set of records, rather than key-value pairs.
>>
>> However, could you please elaborate on the relation between Ignite and
>> ORM?
>> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of Ignite (I haven't
>> seen
>> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the Ignite side to support
>> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API which we already have.
>> Am I missing something?
>>
>> -Val
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:08 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Val,
>> >
>> > I would propose adding another point to the motivations list which is
>> > related to the ORM frameworks such as Spring Data, Hibernate, Micronaut
>> and
>> > many others.
>> >
>> > Presently, the storage engine requires to distinguish key objects from
>> the
>> > value ones that complicate the usage of Ignite with those ORM
>> > frameworks
>> > (especially if a key object comprises several fields). More on this can
>> be
>> > found here:
>> >
>> >
>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
>> >
>> > It will be nice if the new schema-first approach allows us to work with
>> > a
>> > single entity object when it comes to the ORMs. With no need to split
>> > the
>> > entity into a key and value. Just want to be sure that the Ignite 3.0
>> > has
>> > all the essential public APIs that would support the single-entity
>> > based
>> > approach.
>> >
>> > What do you think?
>> >
>> > -
>> > Denis
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:50 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
>> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Igniters,
>> > >
>> > > One of the big changes proposed for Ignite 3.0 is the so-called
>> > > "schema-first approach". To add more clarity, I've started writing
>> > > the
>> > IEP
>> > > for this change:
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
>> > >
>> > > Please take a look and let me know if there are any immediate
>> > > thoughts,
>> > > suggestions, or objections.
>> > >
>> > > -Val
>> > >
>> >
>>
>


-- 

Best regards,
Ivan Pavlukhin

Re: IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>]

>
> However, could you please elaborate on the relation between Ignite and ORM?
> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of Ignite (I haven't seen
> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the Ignite side to support
> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API which we already have.
> Am I missing something?


Good point, yes, if all the ORM integrations use Ignite SQL APIs
internally, then they can easily translate an Entity object into an
INSERT/UPDATE statement that lists all the object's fields. Luckily, our
Spring Data integration is already based on the Ignite SQL APIs and needs
to be improved once the schema-first approach is supported. That would
solve a ton of usability issues.

I would revise the Hibernate integration as well during the Ignite 3.0 dev
phase. Can't say if it's used a lot but Spring Data is getting traction for
sure.

@Michael Pollind, I'll loop you in as long as you've started working on the
Ignite support for Micornaut Data
<https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/> and
came across some challenges. Just watch this discussion. That's what is
coming in Ignite 3.0.


-
Denis


On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 5:11 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Denis,
>
> Generally speaking, I believe that the schema-first approach natively
> addresses the issue if duplicate fields in key and value objects, because
> schema will be created for a cache, not for an object, as it happens now.
> Basically, the schema will define whether there is a primary key or not,
> and which fields are included in case there is one. Any API that we would
> have must be compliant with this, so it becomes fairly easy to work with
> data as with a set of records, rather than key-value pairs.
>
> However, could you please elaborate on the relation between Ignite and ORM?
> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of Ignite (I haven't seen
> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the Ignite side to support
> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API which we already have.
> Am I missing something?
>
> -Val
>
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:08 PM Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Val,
> >
> > I would propose adding another point to the motivations list which is
> > related to the ORM frameworks such as Spring Data, Hibernate, Micronaut
> and
> > many others.
> >
> > Presently, the storage engine requires to distinguish key objects from
> the
> > value ones that complicate the usage of Ignite with those ORM frameworks
> > (especially if a key object comprises several fields). More on this can
> be
> > found here:
> >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> >
> > It will be nice if the new schema-first approach allows us to work with a
> > single entity object when it comes to the ORMs. With no need to split the
> > entity into a key and value. Just want to be sure that the Ignite 3.0 has
> > all the essential public APIs that would support the single-entity based
> > approach.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > -
> > Denis
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:50 PM Valentin Kulichenko <
> > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Igniters,
> > >
> > > One of the big changes proposed for Ignite 3.0 is the so-called
> > > "schema-first approach". To add more clarity, I've started writing the
> > IEP
> > > for this change:
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > >
> > > Please take a look and let me know if there are any immediate thoughts,
> > > suggestions, or objections.
> > >
> > > -Val
> > >
> >
>