Nikita, I think it should be consistent with Binarylizable.
-Val On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 7:12 AM Nikita Amelchev <[email protected]> wrote: > Another problem is support BinaryObject methods, for example, when we need > to get a field(often case in queries with annotation QuerySqlField). In a > binary object, fields are getting from the schema, which I don't have > (BinaryObjectException: Cannot find schema for object with compact footer). > > I see such ways to resolve it: > > 1. Deserialize object and get a field. > > 2. Make methods like BinaryFieldImpl.value(obj) unavailable. I tried to > reproduce similar behavior with Binarylizable(rawWriter) and it throws the > same exception. > > Therefore, if we want to avoid deserialization we should get a format that > is similar to Binarylizable with a raw writer. Is it right? > > What are your thoughts? > > > 2017-09-19 20:10 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko < > [email protected]>: > > > Nikita, > > > > It sounds like the test should be changed, no? In case I'm missing > > something, can you please give more details about the scenario which > > requires deserialization? Generally, this sounds weird - in cases when we > > can get advantage of binary format and avoid deserialization, we > definitely > > should not deserialize. > > > > -Val > > > > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Nikita Amelchev <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > I have some problem when we don't deserialize Externalizable. Some > > messages > > > require deserializing in GridCacheIoManager.message0(). For example, > > tests > > > like testResponseMessageOnUnmarshallingFailed where readExternal throws > > an > > > exception. A message containing Externalizable is deserialized and > > > processed as a failed message. If we do not deserialize here, we won't > > > process this message as failed. What way to resolve it? I see we can > try > > to > > > deserialize after a check on Externalizable in a finishUnmarshall > method, > > > but it looks bad. What are your thoughts? > > > > > > 2017-09-07 12:57 GMT+03:00 Nikita Amelchev <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > I also agree that we should try to use Externalizable without > > > > deserialization on servers. I will do it in a way suggested in the > > > review. > > > > The Externalizable will marshal through type > GridBinaryMarshaller.OBJ, > > in > > > > addition, I’ll add a flag in BinaryConfiguration which will be used > to > > > turn > > > > on the old way with OptimizedMarshaller for compatibility with the > > > current > > > > data format. > > > > > > > > 2017-09-06 4:21 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > >> Vova, I agree. Let's stay loyal to our binary serialization > protocol. > > > >> > > > >> Do you know if we will be loosing any functionality available in > > > >> Externalizable, but not present in our binary protocol? > > > >> > > > >> D. > > > >> > > > >> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 11:38 PM, Vladimir Ozerov < > > [email protected]> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > Folks, > > > >> > > > > >> > Let's discuss how this should be handled properly. I proposed to > use > > > the > > > >> > same format as regular binary object, with all data being written > in > > > >> "raw" > > > >> > form. This would give us one critical advantage - we will be able > to > > > >> work > > > >> > with such objects without deserialization on the server. Hence, no > > > >> classes > > > >> > will be needed on the server side. Current implementation (see PR > in > > > the > > > >> > ticket) defines separate format which require deserialization, I > am > > > not > > > >> OK > > > >> > with it. > > > >> > > > > >> > Thoughts? > > > >> > > > > >> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Nikita Amelchev < > > > [email protected]> > > > >> > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > Hello, Igniters! > > > >> > > > > > >> > > I've developed Externalizable interface support using > > > BinaryMarshaller > > > >> > [1]. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > I have a misunderstanding with defining BinaryWriteMode in > > > >> > > BinaryUtils.mode(cls): there is AffinityKey class which > implements > > > >> > > Externalizable and registered with ReflectiveSerialize, > > > >> BinaryMarshaller > > > >> > > defines it as BinaryWriteMode.OBJ and uses reflection according > to > > > >> > current > > > >> > > logic. I want to say that AffinityKey must be defined as > > > >> > > BinaryWriteMode.OBJ although the class implements the > > Externalizable > > > >> > > interface. > > > >> > > I have to add a new one more parameter in BinaryUtils.mode(cls) > to > > > >> define > > > >> > > BinaryWriteMode in a proper way. > > > >> > > Could you please review and comment my solution [2]? > > > >> > > > > > >> > > BTW, I have benchmarked my solution by > > GridMarshallerPerformanceTest > > > >> and > > > >> > it > > > >> > > becomes faster up to 2 times (GridMarshaller).My JMH tests show > > that > > > >> > > marshal faster up to 50% and unmarshal faster up to 100% on an > > > >> > > Externalizable object. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Also, I've filed an issue for Serializable interface support > using > > > >> > > BinaryMarshaller [3] as it has been described earlier. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2894 > > > >> > > [2] https://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-278 > > > >> > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6172 > > > >> > > > > > >> > > 2017-08-21 20:43 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko < > > > >> > > [email protected]>: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > 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 < > > > >> [email protected] > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > 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 < > > > [email protected] > > > >> >: > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 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 < > > > >> > > > > > [email protected]> 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 < > > > >> > > > [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 > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > -- > > > >> > > > > Best wishes, > > > >> > > > > Amelchev Nikita > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > -- > > > >> > > Best wishes, > > > >> > > Amelchev Nikita > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Amelchev Nikita > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Best wishes, > > > Amelchev Nikita > > > > > > > > > -- > Best wishes, > Amelchev Nikita >
