Hi,
I'm against optional checksum verification. It's not safe, adds one more
configuration property and I don't see any use case that can require this.
I also don't completely understand what you're trying to achieve. Can you
please describe the sequence of serialization/deserialization events that
you expect in your application?
-Val
On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 5:13 PM, 姜 为 <ydswcy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi:
>
> The implementations name maybe not same.
>
> Like my example:
>
> class DataEntity {
> Integer id;
> string name;
> Integer age;
>
> ….. and other
>
> Externalizable.read(in){
> if(in.readBoolean()) {
> id = in.readInt();
> }
> same as name,age...
> }
>
> Externalizable.write(out){
> out.writeBoolean(id != null);
> if(id != null) {
> out.writeInt(id);
> }
> same as name,age...
> }
> }
>
> class ServiceEntity {
> Integer id;
> Integer age;
>
> …. and other
>
> Externalizable.read(in){
> if(in.readBoolean()) {
> id = in.readInt();
> }
> if(in.readBoolean()) {
> in.readString(); // ignore name
> }
> if(in.readBoolean()) {
> age = in.readInt();
> }
> … and other
> }
>
> Externalizable.write(out){
> out.writeBoolean(id != null);
> if(id != null) {
> out.writeInt(id);
> }
> out.writeBoolean(false); // null for name
> out.writeBoolean(age != null);
> if(age != null) {
> out.writeInt(age);
> }
> … and other
> }
> }
>
> The other implementation class can be serialized and deserialized
> custom rules by Externalizable.read and Externalizable.write.
> Each of the different types of servers property needs are
> different,it does not require a complete serialization.
>
>
>
>
> > 在 2015年11月9日，下午10:22，Denis Magda <dma...@gridgain.com> 写道：
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > As I understand both servers have different implementations but the
> names of those implementations are the same, correct?
> > Because otherwise I don't see how your code could get to the point of
> checksum validation if one implementation's name is ServiceEntity while the
> other's is DataEntity.
> >
> > If my assumptions above are correct then I would recommend to do the
> following:
> >
> > 1) Extend Serializable instead of Externalizable
> >
> > interface Entity extends Serializable {
> > .....
> > }
> >
> > 2) Add custom serialVersionUID to each implementation. This will help
> you get rid off checksum related exception
> >
> > class EntityImpl implements Entity {
> > private static final long serialVersionUID = 0L;
> > ......
> > }
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Denis
> >
> > On 11/8/2015 3:27 PM, 姜 为 wrote:
> >> Hi guys:
> >>
> >> I’m using ignite 1.4.
> >> In IgniteCompute.call will transfer of an object to the cluster.
> >> The object should implement Serializable or Externalizable
> interface.
> >> OptimizedClassDescriptor.read method will check whether the object
> is in the same class.
> >>
> >> In my use case,I have some type of servers in cluster.
> >> The server type A will check the business,and the server type B
> will persistent data.
> >> There is a entity interface Entity extends Externalizable have
> different implementations on different servers.
> >> Such like this:
> >>
> >> interface Entity extends Externalizable {
> >> method a();
> >> method b();
> >> method c();
> >> }
> >>
> >> class ServiceEntity implements Entity {
> >> method a(){
> >> // do something...
> >> }
> >>
> >> method b(){
> >> // do something...
> >> }
> >>
> >> method c(){
> >> throw new UnsupportedException...
> >> }
> >>
> >> Externalizable.read...
> >> Externalizable.write...
> >> }
> >>
> >> class DataEntity implements Entity {
> >> method a(){
> >> // do something...
> >> }
> >>
> >> method b(){
> >> throw new UnsupportedException...
> >> }
> >>
> >> method c(){
> >> // do something...
> >> }
> >>
> >> Externalizable.read...
> >> Externalizable.write...
> >> }
> >>
> >>
> >> And IgniteCompute.call(new IgniteCallable(
> >> public Object call(){
> >> Entity.a() or b and c;..
> >> }
> >> ));
> >>
> >> Different implementations of the same class are to achieve read and
> write methods.
> >> But OptimizedClassDescriptor.read will check the class sum and throw
> ClassNotFoundException.
> >>
> >> I recommend verifyChecksum object set as optional,and I really need
> is change.
> >>
> >> Here is my pr:
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1854 <
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1854> <
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1854> <
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1854>
> >> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/200/ <
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/200/> <
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/200/> <
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/200/>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
