Sergey, good point, done. On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Sergey Kozlov <skoz...@gridgain.com> wrote:
> Pavel > > Could you update the page by following: > > - String, date, UUID arrays allow to put NULL. Due to that every item in > the array written as type code byte (default item type or null type code) + > type data. It should be detailed explained (looks like that the table > should have an addtional column called for instance "nullable") > > - UUID type takes 16 bytes length > > thanks > > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Sergey Kozlov <skoz...@gridgain.com> > wrote: > > > Pavel > > > > Thanks for explanations! > > > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > >> Sergey, > >> > >> 1. Code table size does not affect anything, as I understand, so there > is > >> no reason to introduce an extra byte. > >> 2. We have object arrays (code 23), I forgot to mention them, fixed. > >> 3. Also forgot, see code 25 in the updated document. > >> > >> Also note that operation codes have been updated (grouped by purpose) as > >> part of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6989. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Pavel > >> > >> On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 9:54 PM, Sergey Kozlov <skoz...@gridgain.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Pavel > >> > > >> > Thanks for the document and your efforts for new protocol. It was > really > >> > helpful for playing around the python thin client design. > >> > > >> > Could you explain some things that were still not clear for binary > >> object > >> > format: > >> > > >> > 1. What a reason to introduce separated type codes for arrays? Why > just > >> we > >> > can't use the following? > >> > *<1 byte universal array code>* > >> > *<1 byte primitive code>* > >> > *<4 bytes length>* > >> > *<N bytes data>* > >> > > >> > We get 1 byte overhead but save 10 bytes in the code table. For arrays > >> the > >> > overhead is really insignificant:10 longs array takes now 1+4+4*10=45 > >> bytes > >> > vs 1+1+4+4*10=46 bytes for the approach > >> > Moreover for that appoach a new primitive code will be available for > >> using > >> > for array immediately. > >> > > >> > 2. Why the arrays force to use a selected type? For python there's no > >> > limitations to use different types across one array (list). Would be > >> good > >> > to introduce a new type that will allow that. It could be look like > >> > following > >> > *<1 byte universal array code>* > >> > *<1 byte no common type code*> <-- this says that every item must > >> provide > >> > its date type code like it does regular primitive data > >> > *<4 bytes length>* > >> > *<1 byte item 0 type code>* <-- item provides its code > >> > *<N byte item 0 data>* <-- item provides its data > >> > *<1 byte item 1 type code>* > >> > *<N byte item 1 data>* > >> > etc > >> > > >> > Also that allow to put nested arrays without changes in type code > table! > >> > For instance if we want to store 9 longs and 1 boolean it will take > >> > now 1+1+4+(1+9)*4+(1+1)=48 > >> > bytes (vs 45 bytes to store as 10 longs as usual). > >> > > >> > 3. Ther's only one way to store a dictionary (key-value) structure as > >> value > >> > in the cache via Complex Object. But it looks like overcomplicated. I > >> > suppose to introduce a code for that > >> > *<1 byte key-value dictionary code>* > >> > > >> > *<4 bytes length>* > >> > *<1 byte key 1 **name **type code>* > >> > *<N byte key 1 name data>* > >> > *<1 byte value 1 type code>* > >> > *<N byte value 1 value>* > >> > *<1 byte key 2 **name **type code>* > >> > *<N byte key 2 name data>* > >> > *<1 byte value 2 type code>* > >> > *<N byte value 2 value>* > >> > etc > >> > > >> > Also that allow to put nested dictionaries without changes in type > code > >> > table! > >> > Of course for the appoach above we get significat overhead for key > >> > storing. But I think it is acceptable for some cases and definitely ok > >> for > >> > Python > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Prachi Garg <pg...@gridgain.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > Thanks Pavel! The document has good information. I'll create one on > >> > > readme.io; will also add some examples there. > >> > > > >> > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 5:03 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn < > ptupit...@apache.org > >> > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > Igniters, > >> > > > > >> > > > I've put together a detailed description of our Thin Client > protocol > >> > > > in form of IEP on wiki: > >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP- > >> > > > 9+Thin+Client+Protocol > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > To clarify: > >> > > > - Protocol implementation is in master (see ClientMessageParser > >> class) > >> > > > - Protocol has not been released yet, so we are free to change > >> anything > >> > > > - Protocol is only used by .NET Thin Client for now, but is > >> supposed to > >> > > be > >> > > > used from other languages by third party contributors > >> > > > - More operations will be added in future, this is a first set of > >> them, > >> > > > cache-related > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Please review the document and let me know your thoughts. > >> > > > Is there anything missing or wrong? > >> > > > > >> > > > We should make sure that the foundation is solid and extensible. > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Thanks, > >> > > > Pavel > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Sergey Kozlov > >> > GridGain Systems > >> > www.gridgain.com > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Sergey Kozlov > > GridGain Systems > > www.gridgain.com > > > > > > -- > Sergey Kozlov > GridGain Systems > www.gridgain.com >
