If I understand this right, you are talking about a way to create a PdxInstance that has no corresponding java class. How about just a RegionService.createPdxInstanceFactory() method that doesn't take a classname, and therefore has no corresponding java class? It seems a PdxInstances without a class is a more fundamental PdxInstance. A PdxInstance with a java classname on it is just an extension of the classless version.
I agree what Udo is talking about - giving the user better control of *when* there value is deserialized to a java object - is also valuable, but a separate feature. -Dan On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 1:09 PM Darrel Schneider <dschnei...@pivotal.io> wrote: > Even before the JSON pdx support we had internal support for a PdxInstance > that deserializes as a PdxInstance. > This is just adding an external api for that already existing internal > feature. So it is pretty simple to do if we can figure out how to name it. > > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 11:18 AM Galen O'Sullivan <gosulli...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > > > 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? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
