> Igor, it seems like you are advocating the per-cell configuration, not > per-field one.
True, some terms mismatch here. > I see your point about C++ and .NET integrations however. Can't we provide > this info at node-join time or table-creation time? This way all nodes will > receive it and you will be able to grab it on different platforms. This issue can be solved in different ways, I just say that it will be significantly more complicated. Just something we may want to consider when we choose a solution here. Best Regards, Igor On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Igor Sapego <isap...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Just a note from the platforms guy: > > > > Solution with table-level configuration is going to be significantly > > harder to implement for platforms and ODBC then field-level one. > > > > Igor, it seems like you are advocating the per-cell configuration, not > per-field one. The per-field configuration can be defined at the > table/cache level. > > I see your point about C++ and .NET integrations however. Can't we provide > this info at node-join time or table-creation time? This way all nodes will > receive it and you will be able to grab it on different platforms. > > > > > > Also, what about binary objects, which are not stored in cache, > > but being marshalled? > > > > I think the default system encoding should be used here. If we don't have > configuration for default encoding, we should add it. > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > Igor > > > > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > dsetrak...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 3:40 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur < > daradu...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Encoding must be set on per field basis. This will give us as most > > > > flexible > > > > > solution at the cost of 1-byte overhead. > > > > > > > > > Vova, I agree that the encoding should be set on per-field basis, > but > > > at > > > > > the table level, not at a cell level. > > > > > > > > Dmitriy, Vladimir, > > > > Let's use both approaches :-) > > > > We can add parameter to CacheConfiguration. > > > > If parameter specifie to use cache level encoding then marshaller > will > > > use > > > > encoding in a cache, > > > > otherwise marshaller will use per-field encoding. > > > > Of course only if it doesn't complicate the solution. > > > > > > > > > > > I think that it will complicate the solution and will complicate the > > > marshalling protocol. The advantage of specifying the encoding at > > > table/cache level is that we don't need to add extra encoding bytes to > > the > > > marshalling protocol. > > > > > > I think Vova was suggesting encoding at the cell level, not at the > field > > > level, which seems to be redundant to me. > > > > > > Vova, do you agree? > > > > > >
