Dmitriy, Correct. This is what I meant. On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 10:26 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Vladimir, > > I believe the default collections in Java and .NET should be supported out > of the box. Moreover, if we know the collection type, e.g. HashMap, we can > always provide a more efficient way of serializing it ourselves, in the > Binary marshaller. > > Is this something you had in mind, or were you proposing something > different. > > D. > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Alex, > > > > What interface do you mean? If user has collection field in class and > > explicitly call BinaryWriter.writeCollection(), we can leave current > > interoperability support - it is not a problem. > > As per your second point - user could pass collections e.g. as argument > to > > Java task started from .NET. This is where we will loose interoperabiltiy > > and will force user to create some wrappers. But these are very specific > > use cases. > > > > BTW, proposed solution is almost exactly how we work with collections in > > .NET. > > > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Alexey Goncharuk < > > [email protected] > > > wrote: > > > > > I like the idea, however it has obvious downsides. First, if a user > class > > > contains a collection, we force user to implement additional interface, > > > even if the collection is a simple ArrayList. Second, I do not see how > > this > > > plain collection can be the value for the cache - user will always need > > to > > > write a wrapper/containing class around it. > > > > > > I think we should provide minimum support for basic types - HashMap, > > > LinkedHashMap, ArrayList and treat other classes the way Vladimir > > > described. > > > > > >
