Even with my vast expirience I would never claim that I've seen "everything" :)
What do you mean by stable binary key representation and how resolvers make it unstable? -Val On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 2:36 AM, Sergi Vladykin <sergi.vlady...@gmail.com> wrote: > Val, > > I know that you have really vast experience in Ignite deployments and > probably saw everything that can happen. Did you ever see identity > resolvers use in real life? I guess no. > > Hibernate example is bad here, because if their key is unstable across > multiple JVMs, it means that it was not designed for distributed caches a > priori. > > Also knowing in advance about stable binary key representation allows us to > apply additional optimizations, like comparing keys without detaching them > from offheap memory. > > We always will be able to add this stuff back if we see users really need > it. Let's remove it for 2.0. > > Sergi > > 2017-04-06 11:21 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko < > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>: > > > Alex, > > > > To be honest, I don't understand the reasoning behind the removal. I > think > > resolvers provide good flexibility for different corner cases and it's a > > good thing to have them. Note that they can be applied not only to cache > > keys, but to any binary objects. > > > > Hibernate issue is actually a good example of such use case. The fact > that > > we found an alternative solution doesn't actually mean anything, because > > what if this happened not in our module, but in user's application? > > Unfortunately, we can't predict everything. > > > > Error proneness is not a very strong argument either, because in my view > > these resolvers are as much error prone as BinaryIdMapper, for example. > > > > -Val > > > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 11:44 PM, Alexey Goncharuk < > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Denis, > > > > > > Can you suggest a use-case where identity resolver is needed (given > that > > we > > > agree that a key must contain only valuable fields)? > > > > > > 2017-04-05 22:08 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > Where do you want to remove the identity resolvers from? If it’s > > related > > > > to the internals of Hibernate module then it’s fine but if you > suggest > > > > removing identity resolvers public interfaces then it might be a > haste > > > > decision. > > > > > > > > — > > > > Denis > > > > > > > > > On Apr 5, 2017, at 7:42 AM, Alexey Goncharuk < > > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > +1, I see no other reasons to keep it. > > > > > > > > > > 2017-04-05 13:59 GMT+03:00 Sergi Vladykin < > sergi.vlady...@gmail.com > > >: > > > > > > > > > >> +1 > > > > >> > > > > >> Lets drop them. > > > > >> > > > > >> Sergi > > > > >> > > > > >> 2017-04-05 13:50 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Govorukhin < > > > > >> dmitriy.govoruk...@gmail.com> > > > > >> : > > > > >> > > > > >>> Hi guys, i implemented proxy for IgniteCache in hibernate > > > integration, > > > > >> this > > > > >>> proxy transformate cacheKey to our key wrapper, leaves only > > required > > > > >>> field. I think we can remove identity resolve, it should not > broke > > > > >>> integration with hibernate. Any objections? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:07 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < > > > > >>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> I'm not saying there is no alternative solution. But let's > > implement > > > > it > > > > >>> and > > > > >>>> prove that it works first, and remove resolvers only after that. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> -Val > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Sergi Vladykin < > > > > >>> sergi.vlady...@gmail.com > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> Guys, nothing is impossible if you know a bit about reflection > in > > > > >> Java > > > > >>> :) > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> We had a look at the CacheKey class and it is easily > replaceable. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Sergi > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> 2017-03-29 21:49 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > > dsetrak...@apache.org > > > > >>> : > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Valentin Kulichenko < > > > > >>>>>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> "Hibernate key" is the CacheKey class I was referring to. > It's > > > > >>>> provided > > > > >>>>>> by > > > > >>>>>>> Hibernate, not by user and not by us. So I'm not sure it's > > > > >> possible > > > > >>>> to > > > > >>>>>>> replace it. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> If it is impossible to replace or get rid of the Hibernate > key, > > is > > > > >>> this > > > > >>>>>> discussion valid at all? > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
