How about we supply hash code evaluation routine via, say, JavaScript? Yakov has already suggested that in the beginning of this thread.
- Alex 2016-08-02 10:46 GMT+03:00 Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncha...@gmail.com>: > I still fail to understand the use case then. Do we want to support insert > via SQL and get via regular cache API? If yes, then specifying hashCode in > INSERT statement is not optional, because otherwise the next cache.get() > for the inserted key will not work. So, we either enforce user to always > specify a hashCode in insert statement, or force him to use our "automatic" > algorithm of hashCode calculation in his key objects. Both ways look fishy > to me. > > 2016-08-02 2:20 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>: > >> 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. >> > > > >> > > >> > >>
