Lin,
I have no experience with protostuff, but if it relies on the user-defined proto files for generation of the serialization/deserialization stubs, then you'd have to provide the proto files for all serializable Ignite classes. You decide whether or not it's worth the effort. Of course, the Ignite community may be kind enough to contribute the Kryo- and protostuff-based marshaller implementations that know how to correctly marshal the Ignite classes. The community would then also ensure that any code changes in the Ignite core would be properly reflected in the Kryo and protostuff marshallers (by keeping the proto files up to date, for example). Having said that, I don't see much benefit of using such marshallers over the ones already available out of the box: OptimizedMarshaller, JdkMarshaller and the default one - BinaryMarshaller. Maybe some kind of benchmark could be developed to compare Ignite-provided serializers to Kryo, protostuff and others. Regards Andrey ________________________________ From: Lin <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 5:58 AM To: user Subject: Re: How about adding kryo or protostuff as an optional marshaller? Hi Andrey, Than you for your advice, we will consider it seriously. BTW, it looks like all of the general serializers will work like Kyro, as we don't know any information about user's special readObject/writeObject routines , so protostuff may also meet these problems? Is it right? Thanks again. Lin
