Fully agree. QueryEntity should support the same configuration as
QuerySqlField annotation. Isn’t that the case now?
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>
wrote:
> Dima,
>
> No sure what example did you mean. I was talking about
> QuerySqlField(name=[alias]) set on field.
> However, sometimes user will not be able to set annotations on fields
> because he cannot change class. QueryEntity.aliases can help is in these
> cases I think.
>
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I think aliases should be fine. Vova, can you please provide an example
> of
> > aliases, so we are all on the same page?
> >
> > D.
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 7:03 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Well, if having only aliases as a way to resolve such conflicts is
> fine,
> > > then there is not need for the things I described.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > dsetrak...@gridgain.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Are you talking about SQL queries? I thought that we agreed to use
> > field
> > > > aliases in case of name conflicts, no?
> > > >
> > > > D.
> > > >
> > > > > On Dec 21, 2015, at 4:57 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Several additional problems appeared:
> > > > > 1) We must use fully-qualified class names because simple class
> names
> > > > might
> > > > > also be the same. E.g: class package1.A extends package2.A
> > > > > 2) Our query engine doesn't like dots and "$" from class names.
> > Because
> > > > of
> > > > > this fields with these characters cannot be queried.
> > > > >
> > > > > To workaorund these problems I did the following:
> > > > > 1) Fully qualified class names are used;
> > > > > 2) "." is replaced with "_" and "$" is replaced with "__". E.g.
> field
> > > > > org.my.package.MyClass$MyInnerClass.x is written as "
> > > > > org_my_package_MyClass__MyInnerClass_x";
> > > > > 3) If user would like to query the field, he can call special
> helper
> > > > > method BinaryUtils.qualifiedFieldName(Class
> > > > > cls, String fieldName) returning correct field name.
> > > > >
> > > > > As this problem is not likely to occur in real quering scenarios, I
> > > think
> > > > > this solution is more or less fine.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Sergey Kozlov <
> > skoz...@gridgain.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> From my standpoint Vova's appoach very close to SQL behavior if
> two
> > > > joined
> > > > >> tables have same column names.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > > dsetrak...@apache.org
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Got it. I understand the reasoning now for not throwing an
> > exception.
> > > > >> Let’s
> > > > >>> make sure we document this behavior.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> If there is no additional field-name-parsing overhead, then the
> > > > proposed
> > > > >>> API looks very nice.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> D.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 1:19 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > voze...@gridgain.com
> > > > >
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> Dima,
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Here is how proposed design works:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> class A {
> > > > >>>> int x = 1;
> > > > >>>> }
> > > > >>>> class B {
> > > > >>>> int x = 2;
> > > > >>>> }
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> BinaryObject obj = ...;
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Object val = obj.field("A.x"); // Returns "1";
> > > > >>>> Object val = obj.field("B.x"); // Returns "2";
> > > > >>>> Object val = obj.field("x"); // Returns null;
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> boolean exists = obj.hasField("A.x"); // Returns "true";
> > > > >>>> boolean exists = obj.hasField("B.x"); // Returns "true";
> > > > >>>> boolean exists = obj.hasField("x"); // Returns "false";
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Looks clean and consistent for me. Remember that we are talking
> > > about
> > > > >>> very
> > > > >>>> specific use case. It is very unlikely that user will operate on
> > > > >> objects
> > > > >>>> conflicting fields in binary form.
> > > > >>>> Also, there will be no parsing at all. We use field name passed
> by
> > > > user
> > > > >>>> directly.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Vladimir.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > > >>> dsetrak...@apache.org
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> Vova,
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> We cannot return null in case of a conflict, as user won’t be
> > able
> > > to
> > > > >>>>> differentiate between a conflict and missing field. We should
> > throw
> > > > >> an
> > > > >>>>> exception.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Also, I don’t like parsing field names looking for a dot for
> > every
> > > > >>> field.
> > > > >>>>> It will introduce a performance overhead for the cases that do
> > not
> > > > >> have
> > > > >>>>> conflicts. Instead, we should add another API for this use
> case,
> > > > >>>> something
> > > > >>>>> like field(typeName, fieldName).
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> D.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 1:01 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > >> voze...@gridgain.com
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Denis,
> > > > >>>>>> Yes, as we do not know which field to pick, we return null.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Denis Magda <
> > > dma...@gridgain.com
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Sounds good for me. I would go for this approach.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> In addition if to consider your example below and the user
> > > > >> decides
> > > > >>> to
> > > > >>>>>> look
> > > > >>>>>>> up a field by its simple name then he/she will get nothing or
> > > > >>>> exception
> > > > >>>>>>> (depending on the API), correct?
> > > > >>>>>>> As an example for this case the method will return null
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> BinaryObject obj = ...;
> > > > >>>>>>> Object val = obj.field("x"); // null will be returned cause
> we
> > > > >>> don't
> > > > >>>>> know
> > > > >>>>>>> what particular 'x' we have to return
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>>> Denis
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> On 12/21/2015 11:48 AM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Folks,
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> I thought about the solution a bit more and came to the
> > > > >> following
> > > > >>>>>> design.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> *Scenario:*
> > > > >>>>>>>> class A {
> > > > >>>>>>>> int x;
> > > > >>>>>>>> }
> > > > >>>>>>>> class B : extends A {
> > > > >>>>>>>> int y;
> > > > >>>>>>>> }
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> *Solution:*
> > > > >>>>>>>> 1) Field A.x is written as *"A.x"*, field B.x is written as
> > > > >>> *"B.x"*.
> > > > >>>>>> I.e.
> > > > >>>>>>>> *both
> > > > >>>>>>>> conflicting fields are prefixed* with simple name of the
> > owning
> > > > >>>> class.
> > > > >>>>>>>> 2) API is unchanged. User manipulates these fields on all
> > public
> > > > >>>>> methods
> > > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>>>> exactly the same way: "A.x" and "B.x".
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> *Rationale:*
> > > > >>>>>>>> 1) We cannot prefix only some of conflicting fields. E.g. if
> > > > >>> decide
> > > > >>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>> prefix only A.x, then it is not clear how to handle this
> case:
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> class B extends A implements Binarylizable {
> > > > >>>>>>>> void write(BinaryWriter writer) {
> > > > >>>>>>>> writer.writeInt("B.x", x); // User intentionally
> > > > >> written
> > > > >>>>> field
> > > > >>>>>> as
> > > > >>>>>>>> "B.x".
> > > > >>>>>>>> }
> > > > >>>>>>>> }
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> BinaryObject obj = ...;
> > > > >>>>>>>> Object val = obj.field("B.x"); // Should we lookup for "B.x"
> > as
> > > > >>> user
> > > > >>>>>> asked
> > > > >>>>>>>> us, or just for "x"?
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Prefixing all conflicting fields with class name resolves
> the
> > > > >>>> problem.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> 2) If we add methods to manipulate fields not only by name,
> > but
> > > > >> by
> > > > >>>>>>>> (typeName + fieldName) as well, then we will have to add *9
> > new
> > > > >>>>> methods*
> > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> API:
> > > > >>>>>>>> BinaryType.fieldTypeName(String typeName, String fieldName);
> > > > >>>>>>>> BinaryType.field(String typeName, String fieldName);
> > > > >>>>>>>> BinaryObject.field(String typeName, String fieldName);
> > > > >>>>>>>> BinaryObject.hasField(String typeName, String fieldName);
> > > > >>>>>>>> BinaryObjectBuilder.getField(String typeName, String
> > fieldName);
> > > > >>>>>>>> BinaryObjectBuilder.setField(String typeName, String
> > fieldName,
> > > > >>>> ...);
> > > > >>>>>> // 3
> > > > >>>>>>>> overloads
> > > > >>>>>>>> BinaryObjectBuilder.removeField(String typeName, String
> > > > >>> fieldName);
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> This is definitely an overkill for such a rare scenario.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Thoughts?
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > >>>>> voze...@gridgain.com
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Agree, prefixing parent class fields sound like a better
> > option.
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Regarding aliases - I need some time to understand internal
> > > > >>>>> mechanics.
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Will answer this a bit later.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > > >>>>>>>>> dsetrak...@apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Vova,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Class B writes the
> > field
> > > > >>> as
> > > > >>>>> “a”,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> class A writes it with a prefix (possibly the hash code of
> > the
> > > > >>>> class
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> name).
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Also, we should clearly document how the SQL queries are
> > > > >>> affected
> > > > >>>> by
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> this.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> AFAIK, we should be using field aliases here, no?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> D.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > >>>>>> voze...@gridgain.com
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> May be we can use normal field names by default and add
> some
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> prefix/suffix
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> if conflict is found? E.g.:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> class A {
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> int a; // Write as "a";
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> }
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> class B extends A {
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> int a; // Write as "B_a";
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> }
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:34 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Folks,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that issue here is not with 3rd-party
> > > > >>> libraries.
> > > > >>>> We
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> just
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> don't properly support class hierarchy in binary format.
> > Any
> > > > >>>> class
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> extends another class and has the field with the same
> name
> > as
> > > > >>>>> parent
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> has
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> will fail unless user provides custom serialization logic
> > > > >> that
> > > > >>>> will
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> handle
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> it.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> What if we prepend the field name with the simple class
> > name
> > > > >>> in
> > > > >>>>> this
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> case?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Say, we have two classes:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> class A {
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> private int id;
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> }
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> class B extends A {
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> private int id;
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> }
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> In this case we will get two fields: "A.id" and "B.id".
> > The
> > > > >>> only
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> issue is
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> that if there are no name conflict, we should be able to
> > > > >>> resolve
> > > > >>>> by
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> both
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> names - with or without prepended type name. I.e., if A
> is
> > > > >>>>>> serialized,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> you
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> can get the field value by "id" or "A.id". This is
> similar
> > > > >> to
> > > > >>>> how
> > > > >>>>> it
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> works
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> if you join two SQL tables with the same column names.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Any thoughts on whether it's doable or not?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 10:05 AM, Andrey Kornev <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> andrewkor...@hotmail.com>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> In this particular case, the class that fails is a
> > > > >> non-static
> > > > >>>>> inner
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> class
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> that extends another non-static inner class, so they
> both
> > > > >> end
> > > > >>> up
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> having
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> compiler-generated "this$0" field.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 20:44:12 +0300
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: CacheEntry serialization failure
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: voze...@gridgain.com
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@ignite.apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The most straightforward solution which comes to my
> > mind -
> > > > >>> *do
> > > > >>>>> not
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ever
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> use
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> BinaryMarshaller by default*. Always fallback to
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> OptimizedMarshaller
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> unless
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> user explicitly asked us to use binary format (e.g.
> > > > >> through
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> package
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wildcards).
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, we already do this for Externalizable and
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> readObject/writeObject.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> voze...@gridgain.com
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah, I saw your problem with DirectedSpecifics. We need
> > to
> > > > >>>> think
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> how
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to solve it. Here is the case:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Class is Serilzable and cannot be changed;
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) There are several duplicated field names;
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> => BinaryMarshaller cannot handle it.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any thoughts?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> voze...@gridgain.com
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I fixed the problem, it was a bug actually.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By default classes which has some custom Java logic
> > > > >> (e.g.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Externalizable,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or with writeObject/readObject methods) will be
> written
> > > > >>> using
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OptimizedMarshaller, so similar field names is not a
> > > > >>>> problem.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you want to serialize such class in binary format
> > and
> > > > >>>> have
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> duplicate
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> field names, you should provide your own
> > BinarySerializer,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> will
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> write
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> these fields with different names.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Andrey Kornev <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> andrewkor...@hotmail.com>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How am I supposed to handle this situation if the
> > class
> > > > >>>> comes
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> a
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3d
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> party I can't modify?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 09:12:22 +0300
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: CacheEntry serialization failure
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: voze...@gridgain.com
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@ignite.apache.org
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll take a look.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 4:37 AM, Valentin
> > Kulichenko <
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Folks,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like CacheEntry implementation (i.e.,
> the
> > > > >>> entry
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> contains
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version) can't be properly serialized with the
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BinaryMarshaller.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> created
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the test and the ticket:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2203
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can someone take a look?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Val
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> Sergey Kozlov
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
