The discussion should've been started with that :) If supporting resolvers in new architecture is not possible or means too big effort, then it's definitely not worth it.
-Val On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 8:52 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com> wrote: > Dima, > > Yes, they may explode some internals of our indexes. > > 06 апр. 2017 г. 23:32 пользователь "Dmitriy Setrakyan" < > dsetrak...@apache.org> написал: > > > Guys, > > > > Isn't the main issue here that we cannot use the Identity Resolvers in > > BTrees in the 2.0 version? If yes, then we have to remove them no matter > > what. > > > > D. > > > > On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Sergi Vladykin <sergi.vlady...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > Binary key representation is stable when we always have equal > serialized > > > bytes when the original keys are equal. > > > > > > Resolver allows you to have some extra info in the Key and equal Keys > > will > > > be serialized into different bytes, which is wrong. > > > > > > Look at the example what you can do with resolvers: > > > > > > We may have some data entry with fields a, b, c. Let's say the unique > > part > > > here is `a` and it the only fields used in Key equals() and hashCode(). > > > Still we may have the following layouts: > > > > > > 1. Ka -> Vbc > > > 2. Kab -> Vc > > > 3. Kabc -> Boolean.TRUE > > > > > > The only 1 is a correct layout, others are plain wrong variants (but > they > > > are still possible with Resolvers) because everything that does not > make > > > Key unique must be in Value. > > > > > > We want to clearly state that if you have something in Key, that is not > > > part of equals(), then the Key is invalid and that stuff must be in > > Value. > > > This allows us to rely on binary representation of a Key to be stable > and > > > have some more optimizations and code simplifications with respect to > > these > > > assumptions. > > > > > > Sergi > > > > > > 2017-04-06 14:24 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko < > > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > Even with my vast expirience I would never claim that I've seen > > > > "everything" :) > > > > > > > > What do you mean by stable binary key representation and how > resolvers > > > make > > > > it unstable? > > > > > > > > -Val > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 2:36 AM, Sergi Vladykin < > > sergi.vlady...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Val, > > > > > > > > > > I know that you have really vast experience in Ignite deployments > and > > > > > probably saw everything that can happen. Did you ever see identity > > > > > resolvers use in real life? I guess no. > > > > > > > > > > Hibernate example is bad here, because if their key is unstable > > across > > > > > multiple JVMs, it means that it was not designed for distributed > > > caches a > > > > > priori. > > > > > > > > > > Also knowing in advance about stable binary key representation > allows > > > us > > > > to > > > > > apply additional optimizations, like comparing keys without > detaching > > > > them > > > > > from offheap memory. > > > > > > > > > > We always will be able to add this stuff back if we see users > really > > > need > > > > > it. Let's remove it for 2.0. > > > > > > > > > > Sergi > > > > > > > > > > 2017-04-06 11:21 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko < > > > > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, > > > > > > > > > > > > To be honest, I don't understand the reasoning behind the > removal. > > I > > > > > think > > > > > > resolvers provide good flexibility for different corner cases and > > > it's > > > > a > > > > > > good thing to have them. Note that they can be applied not only > to > > > > cache > > > > > > keys, but to any binary objects. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hibernate issue is actually a good example of such use case. The > > fact > > > > > that > > > > > > we found an alternative solution doesn't actually mean anything, > > > > because > > > > > > what if this happened not in our module, but in user's > application? > > > > > > Unfortunately, we can't predict everything. > > > > > > > > > > > > Error proneness is not a very strong argument either, because in > my > > > > view > > > > > > these resolvers are as much error prone as BinaryIdMapper, for > > > example. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Val > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 11:44 PM, Alexey Goncharuk < > > > > > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you suggest a use-case where identity resolver is needed > > (given > > > > > that > > > > > > we > > > > > > > agree that a key must contain only valuable fields)? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-04-05 22:08 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where do you want to remove the identity resolvers from? If > > it’s > > > > > > related > > > > > > > > to the internals of Hibernate module then it’s fine but if > you > > > > > suggest > > > > > > > > removing identity resolvers public interfaces then it might > be > > a > > > > > haste > > > > > > > > decision. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > — > > > > > > > > Denis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 5, 2017, at 7:42 AM, Alexey Goncharuk < > > > > > > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1, I see no other reasons to keep it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-04-05 13:59 GMT+03:00 Sergi Vladykin < > > > > > sergi.vlady...@gmail.com > > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> +1 > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Lets drop them. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Sergi > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> 2017-04-05 13:50 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Govorukhin < > > > > > > > > >> dmitriy.govoruk...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > >> : > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> Hi guys, i implemented proxy for IgniteCache in hibernate > > > > > > > integration, > > > > > > > > >> this > > > > > > > > >>> proxy transformate cacheKey to our key wrapper, leaves > only > > > > > > required > > > > > > > > >>> field. I think we can remove identity resolve, it should > > not > > > > > broke > > > > > > > > >>> integration with hibernate. Any objections? > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:07 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < > > > > > > > > >>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>>> I'm not saying there is no alternative solution. But > let's > > > > > > implement > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > >>> and > > > > > > > > >>>> prove that it works first, and remove resolvers only > after > > > > that. > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>>> -Val > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Sergi Vladykin < > > > > > > > > >>> sergi.vlady...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Guys, nothing is impossible if you know a bit about > > > > reflection > > > > > in > > > > > > > > >> Java > > > > > > > > >>> :) > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>> We had a look at the CacheKey class and it is easily > > > > > replaceable. > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Sergi > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>> 2017-03-29 21:49 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > > > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org > > > > > > > > >>> : > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Valentin Kulichenko > < > > > > > > > > >>>>>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> "Hibernate key" is the CacheKey class I was referring > > to. > > > > > It's > > > > > > > > >>>> provided > > > > > > > > >>>>>> by > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Hibernate, not by user and not by us. So I'm not sure > > > it's > > > > > > > > >> possible > > > > > > > > >>>> to > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> replace it. > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> If it is impossible to replace or get rid of the > > Hibernate > > > > > key, > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > >>> this > > > > > > > > >>>>>> discussion valid at all? > > > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
