Igniters, I think we should support unsigned data types: uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
Java does not have them, but many other languages do, and with the growing number of thin clients this is important. For example, in current Ignite.NET implementation we store unsigned values as signed internally, but this is a huge pain when it comes to metadata, binary objects, etc. (it is easy to deserialize int as uint when you have a class, but not with BinaryObject.GetField) Any objections? On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM Andrey Mashenkov < andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Denis, > > Good point. Both serializers use reflection API. > However, we will allow users to configure static schema along with 'strict' > schema mode, we still need to validate user classes on client nodes against > the latest schema in the grid and reflection API is the only way to do it. > One can find a few articles on the internet on how to enable reflection in > GraalVM. > > I'll create a task for supporting GraalVM, and maybe someone who is > familiar with GraalVM will suggest a solution or a proper workaround. Or > I'll do it a bit later. > If no workaround is found, we could allow users to write it's own > serializer, but I don't think it is a good idea to expose any internal > classes to the public. > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Andrey, thanks for the update, > > > > Does any of the serializers take into consideration the > > native-image-generation feature of GraalVM? > > https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/ > > > > With the current binary marshaller, we can't even generate a native image > > for the code using our thin client APIs. > > > > - > > Denis > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM Andrey Mashenkov < > > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Igniters, > > > > > > I'd like to continue discussion of IEP-54 (Schema-first approach). > > > > > > Hope everyone who is interested had a chance to get familiar with the > > > proposal [1]. > > > Please, do not hesitate to ask questions and share your ideas. > > > > > > I've prepared a prototype of serializer [2] for the data layout > described > > > in the proposal. > > > In prototy, I compared 2 approaches to (de)serialize objects, the first > > one > > > uses java reflection/unsafe API and similar to one we already use in > > Ignite > > > and the second one generates serializer for particular user class and > > uses > > > Janino library for compilation. > > > Second one shows better results in benchmarks. > > > I think we can go with it as default serializer and have > reflection-based > > > implementation as a fallback if someone will have issues with the first > > > one. > > > WDYT? > > > > > > There are a number of tasks under the umbrella ticket [3] waiting for > the > > > assignee. > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to create more tickets for schema manager modes > > > implementation, but would like to clarify some details. > > > > > > I thought schemaManager on each node should held: > > > 1. Local mapping of "schema version" <--> validated local key/value > > > classes pair. > > > 2. Cluster-wide schema changes history. > > > On the client side. Before any key-value API operation we should > > validate a > > > schema for a given key-value pair. > > > If there is no local-mapping exists for a given key-value pair or if a > > > cluster wide schema has a more recent version then the key-value pair > > > should be validated against the latest version and local mapping should > > be > > > updated/actualized. > > > If an object doesn't fit to the latest schema then it depends on schema > > > mode: either fail the operation ('strict' mode) or a new mapping should > > be > > > created and a new schema version should be propagated to the cluster. > > > > > > On the server side we usually have no key-value classes and we operate > > with > > > tuples. > > > As schema change history is available and a tuple has schema version, > > then > > > it is possible to upgrade any received tuple to the last version > without > > > desialization. > > > Thus we could allow nodes to send key-value pairs of previous versions > > (if > > > they didn't receive a schema update yet) without reverting schema > changes > > > made by a node with newer classes. > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the same? > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons > > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616 > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Ivan Pavlukhin <vololo...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > > > Please do not ignore history. We had a thread [1] with many bright > > > > ideas. We can resume it. > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: > > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks for explaining. > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we need to have a separate discussion thread for the > > "table" > > > > and > > > > > "cache" terms substitution. I'll appreciate it if you start the > > thread > > > > > sharing pointers to any relevant IEPs and reasoning behind the > > > suggested > > > > > change. > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > Denis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM Valentin Kulichenko < > > > > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis, > > > > >> > > > > >> I guess the wording in the IEP is a little bit confusing. All it > > means > > > > is > > > > >> that you should not create nested POJOs, but rather inline fields > > > into a > > > > >> single POJO that is mapped to a particular schema. In other words, > > > > nested > > > > >> POJOs are not supported. > > > > >> > > > > >> Alex, is this correct? Please let me know if I'm missing > something. > > > > >> > > > > >> As for the "cache" term, I agree that it is outdated, but I'm not > > sure > > > > >> what we can replace it with. "Table" is tightly associated with > SQL, > > > but > > > > >> SQL is optional in our case. Do you want to create a separate > > > discussion > > > > >> about this? > > > > >> > > > > >> -Val > > > > >> > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> Val, > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I've checked the IEP again and have a few questions. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects and collections are not allowed as > column > > > > >>> values. > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should either be inlined into schema, or stored as > > > BLOBs > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL code snippet showing how the inlining of > > > POJOs > > > > >>> is > > > > >>> supposed to work? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Also, we keep using the terms "cache" and "table" throughout the > > IEP. > > > > Is > > > > >>> it > > > > >>> the right time to discuss an alternate name that would replace > > those > > > > >>> too? > > > > >>> Personally, the "table" should stay and the "cache" should go > > > > >>> considering > > > > >>> that SQL is one of the primary APIs in Ignite and that DDL is > > > supported > > > > >>> out-of-the-box. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> - > > > > >>> Denis > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM Valentin Kulichenko < > > > > >>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > Ivan, > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > I see your point. I agree that with the automatic updates we > step > > > > into > > > > >>> the > > > > >>> > schema-last territory. > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we support automatic evolution, we can as well > > support > > > > >>> > creating a cache without schema and inferring it from the first > > > > >>> > insert. > > > > >>> In > > > > >>> > other words, we can have both "schema-first" and "schema-last" > > > modes. > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you think? > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > -Val > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59 AM Alexey Goncharuk < > > > > >>> > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> > > > > >>> > wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > Ivan, > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got your concern now. As it is mostly regarding > > the > > > > >>> > > terminology, I am absolutely fine with changing the name to > > > > whatever > > > > >>> fits > > > > >>> > > the approach best. Dynamic or evolving schema sounds great. I > > > will > > > > >>> make > > > > >>> > > corresponding changes to the IEP once we settle on the name. > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в 11:33, Ivan Pavlukhin < > > vololo...@gmail.com > > > >: > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val, > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for your answer! > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > My understanding is a little bit different. Yes, schema > > > evolution > > > > >>> > > > definitely should be possible. But I see a main difference > in > > > > "how > > > > >>> > > > schema is updated". I treat a common SQL approach > > schema-first. > > > > >>> Schema > > > > >>> > > > and data manipulation operations are clearly separated and > it > > > > >>> enables > > > > >>> > > > interesting capabilities, e.g. preventing untended schema > > > changes > > > > >>> > > > by > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data operations, restricting user permissions to > > > change > > > > >>> > > > schema. > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first means that schema exists in advance and all > > the > > > > >>> stored > > > > >>> > > data > > > > >>> > > > is compliant with it - that's exactly what is proposed. > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last approach mentioned in [1] also assumes that > > > schema > > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is inferred from data. Is not it more > similar > > to > > > > >>> > > > the > > > > >>> > > > proposing approach? > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would like to say, that my main concern so far is > > mostly > > > > >>> > > > about > > > > >>> > > > terminology. And I suppose if it confuses me then others > > might > > > be > > > > >>> > > > confused as well. My feeling is closer to "dynamic or > liquid > > or > > > > >>> > > > may > > > > >>> be > > > > >>> > > > evolving schema". > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1] > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47 GMT+03:00, Valentin Kulichenko < > > > > >>> > > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>: > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan, > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an issue with that. Schema-first means that > > > schema > > > > >>> exists > > > > >>> > > in > > > > >>> > > > > advance and all the stored data is compliant with it - > > that's > > > > >>> exactly > > > > >>> > > > what > > > > >>> > > > > is proposed. There are no restrictions prohibiting > changes > > to > > > > >>> > > > > the > > > > >>> > > schema. > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 9:52 PM Ivan Pavlukhin < > > > > >>> vololo...@gmail.com> > > > > >>> > > > wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey, > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit confused with terminology. My > > > understanding > > > > >>> > conforms > > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see part X Semi Structured Data). Can > we > > > > >>> > > > >> really > > > > >>> > treat > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema" approach as a kind of "schema-first"? > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > >> [1] > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53 GMT+03:00, Denis Magda < > dma...@apache.org > > >: > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the relation > > > between > > > > >>> > Ignite > > > > >>> > > > and > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM? > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of > > > Ignite > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I > > > > >>> > > haven't > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the > > Ignite > > > > >>> side to > > > > >>> > > > >> support > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API > > which > > > we > > > > >>> > already > > > > >>> > > > >> have. > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something? > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes, if all the ORM integrations use > Ignite > > > SQL > > > > >>> APIs > > > > >>> > > > >> > internally, then they can easily translate an Entity > > > object > > > > >>> into > > > > >>> > an > > > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE statement that lists all the object's > > > fields. > > > > >>> > Luckily, > > > > >>> > > > >> > our > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data integration is already based on the Ignite > > SQL > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs > > > > >>> > and > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be improved once the schema-first approach is > > > supported. > > > > >>> That > > > > >>> > > would > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of usability issues. > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would revise the Hibernate integration as well > during > > > the > > > > >>> Ignite > > > > >>> > > 3.0 > > > > >>> > > > >> dev > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say if it's used a lot but Spring Data is > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting > > > > >>> > > > traction > > > > >>> > > > >> for > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure. > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind, I'll loop you in as long as you've > > > started > > > > >>> > working > > > > >>> > > > on > > > > >>> > > > >> the > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support for Micornaut Data > > > > >>> > > > >> > < > > > > >>> > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/> > > > > >>> > > > and > > > > >>> > > > >> > came across some challenges. Just watch this > discussion. > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's > > > > >>> > what > > > > >>> > > > is > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite 3.0. > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > - > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 5:11 PM Valentin Kulichenko < > > > > >>> > > > >> > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis, > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally speaking, I believe that the schema-first > > > > approach > > > > >>> > > natively > > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the issue if duplicate fields in key and > > value > > > > >>> objects, > > > > >>> > > > >> because > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be created for a cache, not for an > object, > > as > > > > it > > > > >>> > > happens > > > > >>> > > > >> now. > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the schema will define whether there is a > > > > primary > > > > >>> key > > > > >>> > or > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not, > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which fields are included in case there is one. > Any > > > API > > > > >>> that > > > > >>> > we > > > > >>> > > > >> would > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be compliant with this, so it becomes > fairly > > > easy > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to > > > > >>> > work > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a set of records, rather than key-value > > > pairs. > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you please elaborate on the relation > > > between > > > > >>> > Ignite > > > > >>> > > > and > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM? > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case for Hibernate running on top of > > > Ignite > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I > > > > >>> > > haven't > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, what is missing exactly on the > > Ignite > > > > >>> side to > > > > >>> > > > >> support > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my understanding, all you need is SQL API > > which > > > we > > > > >>> > already > > > > >>> > > > >> have. > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing something? > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:08 PM Denis Magda < > > > > >>> dma...@apache.org> > > > > >>> > > > wrote: > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val, > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would propose adding another point to the > > motivations > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list > > > > >>> > > which > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to the ORM frameworks such as Spring Data, > > > > >>> Hibernate, > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many others. > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the storage engine requires to > distinguish > > > key > > > > >>> > objects > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones that complicate the usage of Ignite with > > > those > > > > >>> ORM > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially if a key object comprises several > > fields). > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More > > > > >>> on > > > > >>> > > this > > > > >>> > > > >> can > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found here: > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice if the new schema-first approach > > allows > > > > us > > > > >>> to > > > > >>> > > work > > > > >>> > > > >> with > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single entity object when it comes to the ORMs. > With > > no > > > > >>> need to > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a key and value. Just want to be sure > > that > > > > the > > > > >>> > Ignite > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0 > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the essential public APIs that would support > the > > > > >>> > > single-entity > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach. > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you think? > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > - > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:50 PM Valentin > Kulichenko < > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters, > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the big changes proposed for Ignite 3.0 is > > the > > > > >>> > so-called > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first approach". To add more clarity, > I've > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started > > > > >>> > > > writing > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this change: > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a look and let me know if there are > any > > > > >>> immediate > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts, > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions, or objections. > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > >> -- > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards, > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > -- > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best regards, > > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Best regards, > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Andrey V. Mashenkov >
