+1. Looks like a bug. -Val
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 12:26 PM Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> wrote: > Hello Slava, > > BinaryContext implementation matches only classes that reside in > > the "org.apache.ignite.examples" package > > > This looks like an oversight on our side. Think we need to fix it. > > -- > Denis > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 9:43 AM Вячеслав Коптилин < > slava.kopti...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi Igniters, > > > > I would like to discuss the behavior of BinaryTypeConfiguration in case > of > > using a wildcard for type names. > > Let's consider the following BinaryConfiguration: > > > > <property name="binaryConfiguration"> > > <bean > > class="org.apache.ignite.configuration.BinaryConfiguration"> > > ... > > <property name="typeConfigurations"> > > <list> > > <bean > > class="org.apache.ignite.binary.BinaryTypeConfiguration"> > > * <property name="typeName" > > value="org.apache.ignite.examples.*"/>* > > <property name="nameMapper"> > > <bean > > class="org.apache.ignite.binary.BinaryBasicNameMapper"> > > <constructor-arg type="boolean" > > value="false"/> > > </bean> > > </property> > > </bean> > > </list> > > </property> > > </bean> > > </property> > > > > My intention is using custom BinaryBasicMapper for all classes in the > > specified package and its sub packages, > > but BinaryContext implementation matches only classes that are resides in > > the "org.apache.ignite.examples" package. > > Classes from subpackages are not matched, and therefore do not use the > > specified BinaryBasicNameMapper. That is weird I think. > > > > Is there a reason for that behavior? Do I need to create a ticket for > that > > issue and fix it? What do you think? > > > > Best regards, > > Slava. > > >
