Dmitriy, BinaryStraightIdMapper - calculate hash code for given strings (do not change given string and call hashCode() for it). It's simplest IdMapper. It would be nice if we will have it out-of-the-box.
Could you please describe your approach in more details? Keep in mind, that BinaryIdMapper is already a part of public API and, theoretically, a user can write your own mapper to map class names to IDs (if he will have collisions for own classes) and custom mapper should know nothing about "simpleName" and "lowerCase" properties (for custom implementation). Lets me try to clarify current approach. At first, names classes and fileds are processed by BinaryNameMapper and then these processed names pass to BinaryIdMapper for id calculation. Keep in mind the following: 1. It have to work with .Net. 2. it have to work without .Net and have to work with full name of classes (to fix IGNITE-2191). 3. By some reasons, Ignite write *typeName* (for some types or for all, not sure) at binary metadata. To support 1 and 2 we cannot always write full name or simple name at metadata. So, we have to have method like *String typeName(String fullClassName)* that returns processed class name (we have the one on BinaryNameMapper). I want to repeat that this design are consistent with .Net where we already have NameMapper and IdMapper. Thnaks, -- Artem -- On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[email protected]> wrote: > Looks too busy. > > Why not just have one ID mapper with config properties, like > isSimpleName(), isLowerCase()? > > Also, what is a straight ID mapper? > > D. > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 4:01 AM, Artem Shutak <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Dmitriy, thanks for reminding me about this thread. > > > > According to found issues in process of working on IGNITE-2191, it was > > decided to add new entity BinaryNameMapper (in addition to > BinaryIdMapper) > > as a property of BinaryConfiguration. So, we will have the same > > configuration as we already have for .Net. > > > > So, we need to confirm names for BinaryNameMapper and BinaryIdMapper. I > > propose the following: > > > > - BinarySimpleNameMapper / SimpleClassNameBinaryNameMapper / > > BinarySimpleClassNameMapper - returns simple name of class. > > - BinaryFullNameMapper / BinaryNoopNameMapper / NoopBinaryNameMapper / > > BinaryOriginalNameMapper / StraightBinaryNameMapper - returns name > without > > changes. > > - BinaryLowerCaseIdMapper - it was BinaryInternalIdMapper. > > - BinaryStraightIdMapper - calculate hash code for given strings. > > > > I would chose BinarySimpleClassNameMapper, BinaryOriginalNameMapper, > > BinaryLowerCaseIdMapper and BinaryStraightIdMapper names. > > > > Thanks, > > -- Artem -- > > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 1:46 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Artem, what name do you plan to give to the BinaryInternalIdMapper? > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 1:52 AM, Artem Shutak <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > All Binary-related classes start from Binary. So, it's not > consistent. > > > > > > > > We should chose between *BinarySimpleNameIdMapper* and > > > > *BinarySimpleClassNameIdMapper*. > > > > > > > > Also, I'd like to move default *BinaryInternalIdMapper* to public > > package > > > > (that uses full class name) and rename him accordingly. Any > objections? > > > > > > > > -- Artem -- > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:21 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 3:39 AM, Yakov Zhdanov < > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I would suggest "SimpleClassNameBinaryIdMapper" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is it consistent? Do we have other classes in the same package that > > > start > > > > > with word Binary? If not, then I agree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --Yakov > > > > > > > > > > > > 2016-01-14 4:59 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan < > [email protected] > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like the last one too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:54 AM, Artem Shutak < > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm working on > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2191 > > > > > > (Binary > > > > > > > > marshaller: support user classes with the same simple name) > > bug. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The fix expects new BinaryIdMapper that uses a simple name of > > > > > classes. > > > > > > It > > > > > > > > is required for supporting of platforms (.Net. C++). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would be glade to hear suggestions about good name for this > > > > mapper. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I propose the following: > > > > > > > > - BinaryPlatformIdMapper > > > > > > > > - BinaryInteropIdMapper > > > > > > > > - SimpleNameBinaryIdMapper > > > > > > > > - BinarySimpleNameIdMapper > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like the last one, but it has a big length. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > -- Artem -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
