I suspect Udo is remembering something we both had to deal with, which is that the lack of values to get/put PDXInstances on Regions make some patterns difficult. In internal code, we have to set some thread-locals to get serialized values out, and in general, I think that setting pdx-read-serialized is a violation of the contract you'd expect from the type signature of get, put, etc. Having a separate API for serialized objects, and possibly region-level configuration, makes a lot more sense. You could even have the non-PDX get fail on regions that are set to only use PDX-serialized objects for everything.
We already have something like a PdxInstance that always deserializes to a PdxInstance -- have a look at the __GEMFIRE_JSON mess that we use for JSON. However you end up doing the new PDXInstance stuff, I strongly suggest using the new solution for JSON objects. -Galen On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 10:49 AM Darrel Schneider <dschnei...@pivotal.io> wrote: > I like the idea of adding support to the region configuration that lets > users control how it stores the data. But even if we did that, and you are > correct that it would be much more work, I don't think it would address > this issue or remove the value of a PdxInstance that always deserializes to > a PdxInstance. So I'd like this proposal to stay focused on PdxInstance and > not get side tracked. PdxInstances can be used outside of regions (for > example arguments to functions). > > I'd like to see a separate proposal about being able to configure how a > region stores its data. I could be wrong, but I think that proposal would > focus on the values, not the keys. Storing keys as serialized data is > tricky because you need to come up with a equals and hashCode and if those > are going to be done based on a sequence of serialized bytes then you > really need to understand your serialization code and make sure that > "equal" objects always have the same serialized form. > > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 10:38 AM Udo Kohlmeyer <u...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Darrel, thank you for this. > > > > I would like to propose a counter-proposal. > > > > Instead of introducing another PDXInstance type, why don't we improve > > the serialization framework itself? I know my proposal is most likely > > going to take a little more effort than adding a new type, but I believe > > it is less of a work around. > > > > MY proposal is to have the PDX serialization configuration be a little > > more explicit. In the sense that a user can define serialization details > > down to the Region.Key or Region.Value level. > > > > Why would we possibly have a "one size fits all" approach? Could one > > have a setup where serialization configuration is stored on a per region > > basis. Maybe in some cases we want to deserialize the key and in some > > cases we don't want to. In some regions we want to leave the value in > > serialized form and in others we don't. The point is, why limit to a > > single flag. > > > > --Udo > > > > On 1/15/19 10:17, Darrel Schneider wrote: > > > As part of GEODE-6272 we realized we need a way to use a PdxInstance as > > key > > > for a Region entry. The problem with the current PdxInstance behavior > is > > > that in some members the key may be seen as a PdxInstance and in others > > > seen as an instance of a domain class. This inconsistency can lead to > > > problems, in particular with partitioned regions because of the key's > > hash > > > code being used to determine the bucket. You can read more about this > > here: > > > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__geode.apache.org_docs_guide_17_developing_data-5Fserialization_using-5Fpdx-5Fregion-5Fentry-5Fkeys.html&d=DwIBaQ&c=lnl9vOaLMzsy2niBC8-h_K-7QJuNJEsFrzdndhuJ3Sw&r=eizM8j4ZzXpU2_4tKNPdsrNNjryTeKuT6UdYhvucPpY&m=Pba8A2NQprPqyA0LhCvz9iyCjcXgqxkVildpFiJD6b4&s=blWIWwIbt5SKqKVidtZsC-cB9QK158CdEdOho54mhiM&e= > > > > > > What we want is a new type of PdxInstance that will never deserialize > to > > a > > > domain class. It will always be a PdxInstance. This can safely be used > > as a > > > Region key since PdxInstance implements equals and hashCode. It can > also > > be > > > used in other contexts when you just want some structured data with > well > > > defined fields but never need to deserialize that data to a domain > class. > > > > > > We are trying to figure out what to call this new type of PdxInstance. > > > Currently the pull request for GEODE-6272 has them named as "stable" > > > because they do not change form; they are always a PdxInstance. Another > > > suggestion was not to name them but add a boolean parameter to the > method > > > that creates a PdxInstanceFactory named "forcePDXEveryWhere". > Internally > > we > > > have some code that has a boolean named "noDomainClass". I'd prefer we > > come > > > up with a name instead of using boolean parameters. In the Java world > you > > > label fields that can't change "final" and in the object world you call > > > objects that can't change "immutable". Would either of these be better > > than > > > "stable"? Any other ideas for what we could calls this new type of > > > PdxInstance? > > > > > >
