Folks,
I thought about the solution a bit more and came to the following design.
*Scenario:*
class A {
int x;
}
class B : extends A {
int y;
}
*Solution:*
1) Field A.x is written as *"A.x"*, field B.x is written as *"B.x"*. I.e. *both
conflicting fields are prefixed* with simple name of the owning class.
2) API is unchanged. User manipulates these fields on all public methods in
exactly the same way: "A.x" and "B.x".
*Rationale:*
1) We cannot prefix only some of conflicting fields. E.g. if decide to
prefix only A.x, then it is not clear how to handle this case:
class B extends A implements Binarylizable {
void write(BinaryWriter writer) {
writer.writeInt("B.x", x); // User intentionally written field as
"B.x".
}
}
BinaryObject obj = ...;
Object val = obj.field("B.x"); // Should we lookup for "B.x" as user asked
us, or just for "x"?
Prefixing all conflicting fields with class name resolves the problem.
2) If we add methods to manipulate fields not only by name, but by
(typeName + fieldName) as well, then we will have to add *9 new methods* to
API:
BinaryType.fieldTypeName(String typeName, String fieldName);
BinaryType.field(String typeName, String fieldName);
BinaryObject.field(String typeName, String fieldName);
BinaryObject.hasField(String typeName, String fieldName);
BinaryObjectBuilder.getField(String typeName, String fieldName);
BinaryObjectBuilder.setField(String typeName, String fieldName, ...); // 3
overloads
BinaryObjectBuilder.removeField(String typeName, String fieldName);
This is definitely an overkill for such a rare scenario.
Thoughts?
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Agree, prefixing parent class fields sound like a better option.
> Regarding aliases - I need some time to understand internal mechanics.
> Will answer this a bit later.
>
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[email protected]
> > wrote:
>
>> Vova,
>>
>> Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Class B writes the field as “a”, and
>> class A writes it with a prefix (possibly the hash code of the class
>> name).
>>
>> Also, we should clearly document how the SQL queries are affected by this.
>> AFAIK, we should be using field aliases here, no?
>>
>> D.
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > May be we can use normal field names by default and add some
>> prefix/suffix
>> > if conflict is found? E.g.:
>> >
>> > class A {
>> > int a; // Write as "a";
>> > }
>> >
>> > class B extends A {
>> > int a; // Write as "B_a";
>> > }
>> >
>> > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:34 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
>> > [email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Folks,
>> > >
>> > > It seems to me that issue here is not with 3rd-party libraries. We
>> just
>> > > don't properly support class hierarchy in binary format. Any class
>> that
>> > > extends another class and has the field with the same name as parent
>> has
>> > > will fail unless user provides custom serialization logic that will
>> > handle
>> > > it.
>> > >
>> > > What if we prepend the field name with the simple class name in this
>> > case?
>> > > Say, we have two classes:
>> > >
>> > > class A {
>> > > private int id;
>> > > }
>> > >
>> > > class B extends A {
>> > > private int id;
>> > > }
>> > >
>> > > In this case we will get two fields: "A.id" and "B.id". The only
>> issue is
>> > > that if there are no name conflict, we should be able to resolve by
>> both
>> > > names - with or without prepended type name. I.e., if A is serialized,
>> > you
>> > > can get the field value by "id" or "A.id". This is similar to how it
>> > works
>> > > if you join two SQL tables with the same column names.
>> > >
>> > > Any thoughts on whether it's doable or not?
>> > >
>> > > -Val
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:05 AM, Andrey Kornev <
>> > [email protected]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > In this particular case, the class that fails is a non-static inner
>> > class
>> > > > that extends another non-static inner class, so they both end up
>> having
>> > > the
>> > > > compiler-generated "this$0" field.
>> > > >
>> > > > Regards
>> > > > Andrey
>> > > >
>> > > > > Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 20:44:12 +0300
>> > > > > Subject: Re: CacheEntry serialization failure
>> > > > > From: [email protected]
>> > > > > To: [email protected]
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The most straightforward solution which comes to my mind - *do not
>> > ever
>> > > > use
>> > > > > BinaryMarshaller by default*. Always fallback to
>> OptimizedMarshaller
>> > > > unless
>> > > > > user explicitly asked us to use binary format (e.g. through
>> package
>> > > > > wildcards).
>> > > > >
>> > > > > BTW, we already do this for Externalizable and
>> > readObject/writeObject.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
>> > [email protected]
>> > > >
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Ah, I saw your problem with DirectedSpecifics. We need to think
>> > about
>> > > > how
>> > > > > > to solve it. Here is the case:
>> > > > > > 1) Class is Serilzable and cannot be changed;
>> > > > > > 2) There are several duplicated field names;
>> > > > > > => BinaryMarshaller cannot handle it.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Any thoughts?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
>> > > [email protected]
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >> I fixed the problem, it was a bug actually.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> By default classes which has some custom Java logic (e.g.
>> > > > Externalizable,
>> > > > > >> or with writeObject/readObject methods) will be written using
>> > > > > >> OptimizedMarshaller, so similar field names is not a problem.
>> > > > > >> If you want to serialize such class in binary format and have
>> > > > duplicate
>> > > > > >> field names, you should provide your own BinarySerializer,
>> which
>> > > will
>> > > > write
>> > > > > >> these fields with different names.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Andrey Kornev <
>> > > > [email protected]>
>> > > > > >> wrote:
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>> How am I supposed to handle this situation if the class comes
>> > from
>> > > a
>> > > > 3d
>> > > > > >>> party I can't modify?
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> Thanks
>> > > > > >>> Andrey
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>> > Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 09:12:22 +0300
>> > > > > >>> > Subject: Re: CacheEntry serialization failure
>> > > > > >>> > From: [email protected]
>> > > > > >>> > To: [email protected]
>> > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > >>> > I'll take a look.
>> > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > >>> > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 4:37 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
>> > > > > >>> > [email protected]> wrote:
>> > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > >>> > > Folks,
>> > > > > >>> > >
>> > > > > >>> > > It looks like CacheEntry implementation (i.e., the entry
>> that
>> > > > > >>> contains
>> > > > > >>> > > version) can't be properly serialized with the
>> > > BinaryMarshaller.
>> > > > I
>> > > > > >>> created
>> > > > > >>> > > the test and the ticket:
>> > > > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2203
>> > > > > >>> > >
>> > > > > >>> > > Can someone take a look?
>> > > > > >>> > >
>> > > > > >>> > > -Val
>> > > > > >>> > >
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
