Hello, Igniters. I am developing Externalizable interface support by BinaryMarshaller through new type constant. BinaryMarshaller allows using BinarySerializer to manage serialization. I need to define BinaryWriteMode in the BinaryClassDescriptor constructor. In case of the Binarylizable interface - serializer is ignored and BinaryWriteMode is BINARY. Can I do the same with the Externalizable interface?
In this case, I have issues with AffinityKey: some tests have failed because of they except serialization logic of defined the serializer instead of Externalizable logic. What is the priority between predefined BinarySerializer for class and implementation of Externalizable interface? 2017-08-01 13:09 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>: > Valya, > It makes sense to have both Externalizable and Binarylizable, as user might > want to serialize object for different systems. E.g. deserialize binary > stream from Kafka in Externalizable mode, and then put it to Ignite with > Binarylizable to allow for field access without deserialization. > > Nikita, > I think that Externalizable should be written in the same way as we write > fields in "raw" mode. So may be it will be enough to simply implement our > own ObjectOutput interface on top of existing BinaryWriterExImpl. Makes > sense? > > Vladimir. > > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Valentin Kulichenko < > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Nikita, > > > > 1. Makes sense to me. > > > > 2. Externalizable object should not be written as binary with flag 103, > it > > should be written in the same way it's written now. I don't see any > reason > > to change the protocol. Purpose of this task it to move the logic to > binary > > marshaller instead of depending on optimized marshaller, and also fully > > support handles for these objects and objects included in them. Currently > > binary marshaller and optimized marshaller use different set of handles - > > this is the main downside of current implementation. > > > > 3. I think this order is correct, but does it even make sense to > implement > > both Binarylizable and Externalizable? > > > > -Val > > > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Nikita Amelchev <nsamelc...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hello everebody. > > > > > > I would like to clarify about some moments in marshaller about custom > > > serialization. > > > > > > 1. I suggest to divide the issue into two tasks: support the > > Externalizable > > > and support the Serializable. The second task is to do as a separate > > issue. > > > > > > 2. In case the Optimized marshaller when object is the Extenalizable > > > BinaryUtils.unmarshal() return deserialize value. But if we will not > use > > > Optimized marshaller and write the Extenalizable as the Object(103) it > > > return the BinaryObjectExImpl. It break testBuilderExternalizable. (If > we > > > replace Externalizable to Binarilylizable it also dont work). Fix - > check > > > that object is the Extenalizable and deserialize > > > manual(BinaryUtils.java:1833 in PR). We will use this fix or return > > > BinaryObjectExImpl? > > > > > > 3. What are priority if was implemented several interfaces: > Binarylizable > > > -> Externalizable -> Serializable ? > > > > > > Also can you pre review this issue? > > > PR: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2160 > > > > > > 2017-04-18 17:41 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko < > > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > Nikita, > > > > > > > > For Externalizable option 1 is the correct one. Externalizable > objects > > > > should not be treated as binary objects. > > > > > > > > For read/writeObject, you indeed have to extend ObjectOutputStream. > > > > writeObject() is final because you should extend > writeObjectOverride() > > > > instead. Take a look at ObjectOutputStream's JavaDoc and on how this > is > > > > done in OptimizedObjectOutputStream. Note that ideally we need to > > > implement > > > > everything that is included in Java serialization spec, including > some > > > > non-trivial stuff like PutField. I would check if it's possible to > > > somehow > > > > reuse the code that already exists in optimized marshaller as much as > > > > possible. > > > > > > > > -Val > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Nikita Amelchev < > nsamelc...@gmail.com > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I see two ways to support the Externalizable in the BM: > > > > > 1. Add a new type constant to the GridBinaryMarshaller class etc > and > > > > > read/writeExternal in the BinaryClassDescriptor. > > > > > 2. Make read/writeExternal through the BINARY type without updating > > > > > metadata. > > > > > I don't know how to make a support read/writeObject of the > > Serializable > > > > > without delegating to the OM. Because read/writeObject methods need > > the > > > > > Objectoutputstream class argument. One way is to delegate it to the > > > > > OptimizedObjectOutputStream. Second way is to extend the > > > > Objectoutputstream > > > > > in the BinaryWriterExImpl. But it is wrong way because the > > writeObject > > > is > > > > > final. > > > > > > > > > > 2017-01-19 20:46 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko < > > > > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > > > Nikita, > > > > > > > > > > > > In my view we just need to support Externalizable and > > > > > > writeObject/readObject in BinaryMarshaller and get rid of > > delegation > > > to > > > > > > optimized marshaller. Once such classes also go through > > > > BinaryMarshaller > > > > > > streams, they will be aware of binary configuration and will > share > > > the > > > > > same > > > > > > set of handles as well. This should take care of all the issues > we > > > have > > > > > > here. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Val > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Nikita Amelchev < > > > nsamelc...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have some questions about single Marshaller. > > > > > > > It seems not easy to merge OptimizedMarshaller with > > > BinaryMarshaller > > > > > and > > > > > > is > > > > > > > there any sense in it? > > > > > > > When Binary object inside Externalizable serialized with > > optimized > > > it > > > > > > > losing all benefits. > > > > > > > Will OptimizedMarshaller be supported at 2.0 version? Or to > merge > > > > they > > > > > is > > > > > > > better? > > > > > > > What do you think about it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In addition, Vladimir Ozerov, I would like to hear your > opinion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-01-17 23:32 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Someone else added you to the contributors list in JIRA. This > > is > > > > why > > > > > I > > > > > > > > couldn’t add you for the second time. Ignite committers, > please > > > > reply > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > the dev list if you add someone to the list. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nikita, yes, this ticket is still relevant. Go ahead and > assign > > > it > > > > on > > > > > > > > yourself. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also please you may want to help with approaching 2.0 release > > and > > > > > take > > > > > > > > care of one of the sub-tasks that must be included in 2.0: > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4547 < > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4547> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > — > > > > > > > > Denis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 15, 2017, at 9:02 PM, Nikita Amelchev < > > > > nsamelc...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This issue was created long ago. Is still relevant? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JIRA account: > > > > > > > > > Username: NSAmelchev > > > > > > > > > Full Name: Amelchev Nikita > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-01-14 1:52 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Nikita, > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> I can’t find provided account in Ignite JIRA > > > > > > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE < > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/ > > > > > > > > >> jira/browse/IGNITE> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Please create an account there and share with me. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> This information might be useful for you as well. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Subscribe to both dev and user lists: > > > > > > > > >> https://ignite.apache.org/community/resources.html#mail- > > lists > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Get familiar with Ignite development process described > here: > > > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/ > > > > > > > Development+Process > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Instructions on how to contribute can be found here: > > > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+ > > > > > > to+Contribute > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Project setup in Intellij IDEAL > > > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/ > > > > Project+Setup > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Regards, > > > > > > > > >> Denis > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> On Jan 13, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Nikita Amelchev < > > > > > nsamelc...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> Hello everyone. > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> I'd like to take IGNITE-2894. Can you assign to me? > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> Username: NSAmelchev > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> -- > > > > > > > > >>> Best wishes, > > > > > > > > >>> Amelchev Nikita > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > Amelchev Nikita > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Best wishes, > > > Amelchev Nikita > > > > > > -- Best wishes, Amelchev Nikita
