Hi Nikita, 1. Makes sense to me.
2. Externalizable object should not be written as binary with flag 103, it should be written in the same way it's written now. I don't see any reason to change the protocol. Purpose of this task it to move the logic to binary marshaller instead of depending on optimized marshaller, and also fully support handles for these objects and objects included in them. Currently binary marshaller and optimized marshaller use different set of handles - this is the main downside of current implementation. 3. I think this order is correct, but does it even make sense to implement both Binarylizable and Externalizable? -Val On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Nikita Amelchev <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello everebody. > > I would like to clarify about some moments in marshaller about custom > serialization. > > 1. I suggest to divide the issue into two tasks: support the Externalizable > and support the Serializable. The second task is to do as a separate issue. > > 2. In case the Optimized marshaller when object is the Extenalizable > BinaryUtils.unmarshal() return deserialize value. But if we will not use > Optimized marshaller and write the Extenalizable as the Object(103) it > return the BinaryObjectExImpl. It break testBuilderExternalizable. (If we > replace Externalizable to Binarilylizable it also dont work). Fix - check > that object is the Extenalizable and deserialize > manual(BinaryUtils.java:1833 in PR). We will use this fix or return > BinaryObjectExImpl? > > 3. What are priority if was implemented several interfaces: Binarylizable > -> Externalizable -> Serializable ? > > Also can you pre review this issue? > PR: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2160 > > 2017-04-18 17:41 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko < > [email protected]>: > > > Nikita, > > > > For Externalizable option 1 is the correct one. Externalizable objects > > should not be treated as binary objects. > > > > For read/writeObject, you indeed have to extend ObjectOutputStream. > > writeObject() is final because you should extend writeObjectOverride() > > instead. Take a look at ObjectOutputStream's JavaDoc and on how this is > > done in OptimizedObjectOutputStream. Note that ideally we need to > implement > > everything that is included in Java serialization spec, including some > > non-trivial stuff like PutField. I would check if it's possible to > somehow > > reuse the code that already exists in optimized marshaller as much as > > possible. > > > > -Val > > > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Nikita Amelchev <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > I see two ways to support the Externalizable in the BM: > > > 1. Add a new type constant to the GridBinaryMarshaller class etc and > > > read/writeExternal in the BinaryClassDescriptor. > > > 2. Make read/writeExternal through the BINARY type without updating > > > metadata. > > > I don't know how to make a support read/writeObject of the Serializable > > > without delegating to the OM. Because read/writeObject methods need the > > > Objectoutputstream class argument. One way is to delegate it to the > > > OptimizedObjectOutputStream. Second way is to extend the > > Objectoutputstream > > > in the BinaryWriterExImpl. But it is wrong way because the writeObject > is > > > final. > > > > > > 2017-01-19 20:46 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko < > > > [email protected]>: > > > > > > > Nikita, > > > > > > > > In my view we just need to support Externalizable and > > > > writeObject/readObject in BinaryMarshaller and get rid of delegation > to > > > > optimized marshaller. Once such classes also go through > > BinaryMarshaller > > > > streams, they will be aware of binary configuration and will share > the > > > same > > > > set of handles as well. This should take care of all the issues we > have > > > > here. > > > > > > > > -Val > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Nikita Amelchev < > [email protected] > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I have some questions about single Marshaller. > > > > > It seems not easy to merge OptimizedMarshaller with > BinaryMarshaller > > > and > > > > is > > > > > there any sense in it? > > > > > When Binary object inside Externalizable serialized with optimized > it > > > > > losing all benefits. > > > > > Will OptimizedMarshaller be supported at 2.0 version? Or to merge > > they > > > is > > > > > better? > > > > > What do you think about it? > > > > > > > > > > In addition, Vladimir Ozerov, I would like to hear your opinion. > > > > > > > > > > 2017-01-17 23:32 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > > > > > Someone else added you to the contributors list in JIRA. This is > > why > > > I > > > > > > couldn’t add you for the second time. Ignite committers, please > > reply > > > > on > > > > > > the dev list if you add someone to the list. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nikita, yes, this ticket is still relevant. Go ahead and assign > it > > on > > > > > > yourself. > > > > > > > > > > > > Also please you may want to help with approaching 2.0 release and > > > take > > > > > > care of one of the sub-tasks that must be included in 2.0: > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4547 < > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4547> > > > > > > > > > > > > — > > > > > > Denis > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 15, 2017, at 9:02 PM, Nikita Amelchev < > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This issue was created long ago. Is still relevant? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JIRA account: > > > > > > > Username: NSAmelchev > > > > > > > Full Name: Amelchev Nikita > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-01-14 1:52 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Nikita, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I can’t find provided account in Ignite JIRA > > > > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE < > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/ > > > > > > >> jira/browse/IGNITE> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Please create an account there and share with me. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> This information might be useful for you as well. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Subscribe to both dev and user lists: > > > > > > >> https://ignite.apache.org/community/resources.html#mail-lists > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Get familiar with Ignite development process described here: > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/ > > > > > Development+Process > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Instructions on how to contribute can be found here: > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+ > > > > to+Contribute > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Project setup in Intellij IDEAL > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/ > > Project+Setup > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Regards, > > > > > > >> Denis > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> On Jan 13, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Nikita Amelchev < > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Hello everyone. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> I'd like to take IGNITE-2894. Can you assign to me? > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Username: NSAmelchev > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> -- > > > > > > >>> Best wishes, > > > > > > >>> Amelchev Nikita > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > Amelchev Nikita > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Best wishes, > > > Amelchev Nikita > > > > > > > > > -- > Best wishes, > Amelchev Nikita >
