On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Igor Sapego <isap...@apache.org> wrote:
> Just a note from the platforms guy: > > Solution with table-level configuration is going to be significantly > harder to implement for platforms and ODBC then field-level one. > Igor, it seems like you are advocating the per-cell configuration, not per-field one. The per-field configuration can be defined at the table/cache level. I see your point about C++ and .NET integrations however. Can't we provide this info at node-join time or table-creation time? This way all nodes will receive it and you will be able to grab it on different platforms. > > Also, what about binary objects, which are not stored in cache, > but being marshalled? > I think the default system encoding should be used here. If we don't have configuration for default encoding, we should add it. > > > Best Regards, > Igor > > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 3:40 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur <daradu...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Encoding must be set on per field basis. This will give us as most > > > flexible > > > > solution at the cost of 1-byte overhead. > > > > > > > Vova, I agree that the encoding should be set on per-field basis, but > > at > > > > the table level, not at a cell level. > > > > > > Dmitriy, Vladimir, > > > Let's use both approaches :-) > > > We can add parameter to CacheConfiguration. > > > If parameter specifie to use cache level encoding then marshaller will > > use > > > encoding in a cache, > > > otherwise marshaller will use per-field encoding. > > > Of course only if it doesn't complicate the solution. > > > > > > > > I think that it will complicate the solution and will complicate the > > marshalling protocol. The advantage of specifying the encoding at > > table/cache level is that we don't need to add extra encoding bytes to > the > > marshalling protocol. > > > > I think Vova was suggesting encoding at the cell level, not at the field > > level, which seems to be redundant to me. > > > > Vova, do you agree? > > >
