Re: Proxy serialization issue
Alex, I don't know in advance how many bytes I will write because some classes can be successfully registered, but some not. Therefore I can't extend by more than 5 bytes at this point. Makes sense? -Val On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 4:02 AM, Alexey Goncharukwrote: > Val, > > The code looks good to me. The only place that made me wonder was > out.unsafeEnsure(1 + 4) call which extends the stream by 5 bytes, however > we can write significantly more bytes. I see that we use the same approach > in other places, so I was wondering if this is a required call or a > performance hint? >
Re: Proxy serialization issue
Val, The code looks good to me. The only place that made me wonder was out.unsafeEnsure(1 + 4) call which extends the stream by 5 bytes, however we can write significantly more bytes. I see that we use the same approach in other places, so I was wondering if this is a required call or a performance hint?
Proxy serialization issue
Igniters, I fixed java.lang.reflect.Proxy serialization in both optimized and binary marshaller. Can someone familiar with marshalling code review my changes before I merge? Patch is attached to the ticket [1]. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2450 Thanks! -Val
Re: Proxy serialization issue
Yes, this happens because in a single JVM the dynamic proxy class is available for Class.forName, but for multi-jvm case this is not true. We should additionally write information about the implemented interfaces and manually recreate the proxy during unmarshalling. But the problem is that it's not a compatible change. In binary marshaller there is a protocol version, so should be OK, but we don't have it for optimized marshaller, right? -Val On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:21 AM, Alexey Goncharuk < alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is correct, I took the original test that existed for Optimized > marshaller and copied it for Binary marshaller. Was not aware of multi-jvm > specifics. Just ran the provided example with Optimized marshaller - it > does not work either. > > 2016-01-28 11:08 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <dma...@gridgain.com>: > > > To my knowledge Alex G. was taking care of this initial issue. > > > > This particular one is reproduced only in multi JVM mode. > > > > -- > > Denis > > > > > > On 1/28/2016 2:59 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > > > >> Who was originally responsible for fixing the Proxy serialization issue? > >> > >> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:07 AM, Denis Magda <dma...@gridgain.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Igniters, > >>> > >>> A end user reported on the issue related to proxy > >>> serialization/deserialization > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2450 > >>> > >>> Could someone experienced in marshalling take a look at this? Seems > that > >>> the original proxy related issue wasn't fully fixed. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Denis > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > >
Re: Proxy serialization issue
In my view we should go ahead and fix it. How can we break something that never worked? On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Valentin Kulichenko < valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, this happens because in a single JVM the dynamic proxy class is > available for Class.forName, but for multi-jvm case this is not true. We > should additionally write information about the implemented interfaces and > manually recreate the proxy during unmarshalling. But the problem is that > it's not a compatible change. In binary marshaller there is a protocol > version, so should be OK, but we don't have it for optimized marshaller, > right? > > -Val > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:21 AM, Alexey Goncharuk < > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > This is correct, I took the original test that existed for Optimized > > marshaller and copied it for Binary marshaller. Was not aware of > multi-jvm > > specifics. Just ran the provided example with Optimized marshaller - it > > does not work either. > > > > 2016-01-28 11:08 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <dma...@gridgain.com>: > > > > > To my knowledge Alex G. was taking care of this initial issue. > > > > > > This particular one is reproduced only in multi JVM mode. > > > > > > -- > > > Denis > > > > > > > > > On 1/28/2016 2:59 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > > > > > >> Who was originally responsible for fixing the Proxy serialization > issue? > > >> > > >> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:07 AM, Denis Magda <dma...@gridgain.com> > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Igniters, > > >>> > > >>> A end user reported on the issue related to proxy > > >>> serialization/deserialization > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2450 > > >>> > > >>> Could someone experienced in marshalling take a look at this? Seems > > that > > >>> the original proxy related issue wasn't fully fixed. > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Denis > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > >
Re: Proxy serialization issue
This is correct, I took the original test that existed for Optimized marshaller and copied it for Binary marshaller. Was not aware of multi-jvm specifics. Just ran the provided example with Optimized marshaller - it does not work either. 2016-01-28 11:08 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <dma...@gridgain.com>: > To my knowledge Alex G. was taking care of this initial issue. > > This particular one is reproduced only in multi JVM mode. > > -- > Denis > > > On 1/28/2016 2:59 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > >> Who was originally responsible for fixing the Proxy serialization issue? >> >> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:07 AM, Denis Magda <dma...@gridgain.com> wrote: >> >> Igniters, >>> >>> A end user reported on the issue related to proxy >>> serialization/deserialization >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2450 >>> >>> Could someone experienced in marshalling take a look at this? Seems that >>> the original proxy related issue wasn't fully fixed. >>> >>> -- >>> Denis >>> >>> >>> >>> >
Re: Proxy serialization issue
To my knowledge Alex G. was taking care of this initial issue. This particular one is reproduced only in multi JVM mode. -- Denis On 1/28/2016 2:59 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: Who was originally responsible for fixing the Proxy serialization issue? On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:07 AM, Denis Magda <dma...@gridgain.com> wrote: Igniters, A end user reported on the issue related to proxy serialization/deserialization https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2450 Could someone experienced in marshalling take a look at this? Seems that the original proxy related issue wasn't fully fixed. -- Denis
Re: Proxy serialization issue
Who was originally responsible for fixing the Proxy serialization issue? On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:07 AM, Denis Magda <dma...@gridgain.com> wrote: > Igniters, > > A end user reported on the issue related to proxy > serialization/deserialization > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2450 > > Could someone experienced in marshalling take a look at this? Seems that > the original proxy related issue wasn't fully fixed. > > -- > Denis > > >
Proxy serialization issue
Igniters, A end user reported on the issue related to proxy serialization/deserialization https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2450 Could someone experienced in marshalling take a look at this? Seems that the original proxy related issue wasn't fully fixed. -- Denis