I apologize for damaged formatting. Below is my message as it should be.
Hi Igniters, I'd like to discuss future changes related to https://issues.apache.org/ jira/browse/IGNITE-5655. Is it really good idea to introduce new flag (ENCODED_STRING) for existing String datatype? It's possible to use existing STRING flag at negligible performance cost. Currently, utf-8-encoded string looks like byteFlag nonNegativeIntStrLen bytes This format can be backward compatibly extended to byteFlag [negativeIntCharsetCode] nonNegativeIntStrLen bytes Next, I suggest to add new BinaryConfiguration property for encoding to use instead of using global property. It seems to be more convenient for user. I'll appreciate your feedback. 2017-07-25 16:13 GMT+03:00 Andrey Kuznetsov <stku...@gmail.com>: > Hi Igniters,I'd like to discuss future changes related to IGNITE-5655 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5655> . Is it really good > idea to introduce new flag (ENCODED_STRING) for existing String datatype? > It's possible to use existing STRING flag at negligible performance cost. > Currently, utf-8-encoded string looks like > byteFlag nonNegativeIntStrLen bytes > This format can be backward compatibly extended to > byteFlag [negativeIntCharsetCode] nonNegativeIntStrLen bytes > Next, I suggest to add new BinaryConfiguration property for encoding to use > instead of using global property. It seems to be more convenient for > user.I'll appreciate your feedback. > > > > ----- > Best regards, > Andrey Kuznetsov. > -- > View this message in context: http://apache-ignite- > developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Non-UTF-8-string-encoding- > support-in-BinaryMarshaller-IGNITE-5655-tp20024.html > Sent from the Apache Ignite Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Best regards, Andrey Kuznetsov.
