Nikita, I think anything binary related should have higher priority than Externalizable. I.e. if user explicitly implemented Binarylizable or provided a BinarySerializer, then BinaryMarshaller should of course use that and ignore Externalizable.
-Val On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Nikita Amelchev <nsamelc...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, Igniters. > > I am developing Externalizable interface support by BinaryMarshaller > through new type constant. BinaryMarshaller allows using BinarySerializer > to manage serialization. I need to define BinaryWriteMode in the > BinaryClassDescriptor constructor. In case of the Binarylizable interface - > serializer is ignored and BinaryWriteMode is BINARY. Can I do the same with > the Externalizable interface? > > In this case, I have issues with AffinityKey: some tests have failed > because of they except serialization logic of defined the serializer > instead of Externalizable logic. What is the priority between predefined > BinarySerializer for class and implementation of Externalizable interface? > > 2017-08-01 13:09 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>: > > > Valya, > > It makes sense to have both Externalizable and Binarylizable, as user > might > > want to serialize object for different systems. E.g. deserialize binary > > stream from Kafka in Externalizable mode, and then put it to Ignite with > > Binarylizable to allow for field access without deserialization. > > > > Nikita, > > I think that Externalizable should be written in the same way as we write > > fields in "raw" mode. So may be it will be enough to simply implement our > > own ObjectOutput interface on top of existing BinaryWriterExImpl. Makes > > sense? > > > > Vladimir. > > > > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Valentin Kulichenko < > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 <nsamelc...@gmail.com > > > > > 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 < > > > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > 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 < > > nsamelc...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > 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 < > > > > > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 < > > > > nsamelc...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 <dma...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 < > > > > > nsamelc...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 <dma...@apache.org > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 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 < > > > > > > nsamelc...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Best wishes, > Amelchev Nikita >