Vladimir, I believe the default collections in Java and .NET should be supported out of the box. Moreover, if we know the collection type, e.g. HashMap, we can always provide a more efficient way of serializing it ourselves, in the Binary marshaller.
Is this something you had in mind, or were you proposing something different. D. On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <[email protected]> wrote: > Alex, > > What interface do you mean? If user has collection field in class and > explicitly call BinaryWriter.writeCollection(), we can leave current > interoperability support - it is not a problem. > As per your second point - user could pass collections e.g. as argument to > Java task started from .NET. This is where we will loose interoperabiltiy > and will force user to create some wrappers. But these are very specific > use cases. > > BTW, proposed solution is almost exactly how we work with collections in > .NET. > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Alexey Goncharuk < > [email protected] > > wrote: > > > I like the idea, however it has obvious downsides. First, if a user class > > contains a collection, we force user to implement additional interface, > > even if the collection is a simple ArrayList. Second, I do not see how > this > > plain collection can be the value for the cache - user will always need > to > > write a wrapper/containing class around it. > > > > I think we should provide minimum support for basic types - HashMap, > > LinkedHashMap, ArrayList and treat other classes the way Vladimir > > described. > > >
