Dmitriy, Good point, however, currently there's no way to distinguish hash code of zero which is a valid case from missing hash code. We probably should enhance binary builder for it to handle this case.
- Alex 2016-08-02 9:47 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>: > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com> > wrote: > >> Andrey, >> >> The question is when to print this warning. I doubt we can print a warning >> when calling *BinaryObjectBuilder.build() *method, because an object >> without a hash code is normal situation. >> >> > I would not only print warning, but throw exception, if an object without a > hashCode ends up on a put or read operation in cache. > > >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Andrey Gura <ag...@gridgain.com> wrote: >> >> > I think we also should print some warning in case when hashCode() wasn't >> > called on BinaryObject explicitly. >> > >> > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 2:20 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org >> > >> > wrote: >> > >> > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Alexey Goncharuk < >> > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > > Dmitriy, >> > > > >> > > > The question is how do you calculate the value of the hashCode? Do >> you >> > > want >> > > > it to be specified explicitly in INSERT statement? >> > > > >> > > >> > > I think optionally we should allow to specify hashCode as part of the >> > > INSERT statement. However, if it is not specified, we should calculate >> it >> > > automatically based in the key fields defined in the schema/type. >> Agree? >> > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > 2016-08-01 19:47 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org >> >: >> > > > >> > > > > Alex, >> > > > > >> > > > > In your case, why not just explicitly set hashcode every time you >> > > create >> > > > an >> > > > > object? There is BinaryObjectBuilder.hashCode(...) method. >> > > > > >> > > > > D. >> > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 7:42 AM, al.psc < >> > > alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > Guys, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > It seems like this problem has become an important one once >> again. >> > > > > > In the course of working on >> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2294 (DML support) >> > > > there's >> > > > > > need >> > > > > > to support binary marshaller. And, although we can build just >> > > > > BinaryObject >> > > > > > and put it to cache, without adequate hash code it won't be >> stored >> > > > > > properly. >> > > > > > Currently SQL MERGE works simply by deserializing newly built >> > object, >> > > > but >> > > > > > it's obviously wrong and is just a workaround rather a solution. >> > > > > > Has anyone come with possible design proposals for this problem's >> > > > > solution? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > - Alex >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > -- >> > > > > > View this message in context: >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/All-BinaryObjects-created-by-BinaryObjectBuilder-stored-at-the-same-partition-by-default-tp8042p10304.html >> > > > > > Sent from the Apache Ignite Developers mailing list archive at >> > > > > Nabble.com. >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Andrey Gura >> > GridGain Systems, Inc. >> > www.gridgain.com >> > >>
