I am going to drop support of the following classes. All these classes are currently written in a special unified way. After my changes they will be written *as any other usual object*.
1) Sorted collections: - TreeSet - TreeMap - ConcurrentSkipListSet Reason: currently we do not write Comparator which might lead to exceptions on the other side. 2) Special collections: - ConcurrentLinkedQueue - ConcurrentHashMap - PropertiesMap Reason: too specific use cases. 3) Map.Entry Reason: this is an interface with billion implemenations, we cannot unmarshal it correctly on the other side without full serialization of concrete class. On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com> wrote: > Dmitriy, > Correct. This is what I meant. > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 10:26 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> > 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 <voze...@gridgain.com> >> 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 < >> > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com >> > > 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. >> > > >> > >> > >
