Nikolay, I agree with your proposal, with one addition: this behavior must be disabled by default for compatibility reasons.
Imagine that some Ignite user has lots of .NET and Java classes being stored in cache, used in compute, etc. Now with the proposal implemented, all .NET classes are registered as Java classes too, which has a potential for hash code collisions, resulting in DuplicateTypeIdException. So the user can't upgrade to 2.11, their app does not work anymore, which is not acceptable. This is not up for discussion, we do not break compatibility like this. Let's add a flag like BinaryConfiguration.AssumeSameJavaTypeNames, which enables the behavior globally and both ways: all type names become shared across all platforms in MarshallerContextImpl. On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 11:21 AM Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org> wrote: > Hello, Pavel > > My proposal is the following: > > *When Ignite configured with FQN NameMapper.* > And user invokes > > 1. Service method from .Net to Java. > 2. Compute methods `ExecuteJavaTask`, `ExecuteJavaTaskAsync` > 3. Cache operations. > > Ignite should implicitly register types both for .Net and Java platform. > > ===== > My intentions is to simplify usage of the Ignite .Net platform by > eliminating necessity of BinaryConfiguration in .Net. > > Approach when user should modify Ignite configuration on both sides Java > and .Net every time he use new class as a service parameter looks ugly, for > me. > > You can see an example of my idea in services test [1] > In current release, user forced to enlist each type in configuration. > Now, you just deploy Java service and use it. > > Please, Note: > > 1. FQN NameMapper is a default value. > 2. FQN NameMapper requires from the user to have exactly same names for > custom binary types in Java and .Net. > 3. Improvals for Services in master, already. > > [1] > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/platforms/dotnet/Apache.Ignite.Core.Tests/Services/ServiceTypeAutoResolveTest.cs#L146 > > > 13 янв. 2021 г., в 10:13, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org> > написал(а): > > > > Nikolay, > > > > As I understand, you insist on changing the default behavior, is this > > correct? > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 9:51 PM Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > >> Hello, Igor, Pavel. > >> > >> Thanks for the feedback > >> > >>> Agree with Pavel, this should be disabled by default. > >> > >> Right now, Ignite, by default, forcing users to enlist every single > value > >> object they have in project in the config. > >> Do you think it’s a right way to go? > >> > >>> To me it looks pretty dangerous as users do not explicitly control > >> what’s going to be registered and it could lead to hard-to-debug > mistakes > >> when wrong classes get registered or with wrong names. > >> > >> Approach with transparent type registration implemented in every RPC > >> framework I know. > >> I think user expect it from the modern software. > >> Can you, please, highlight dangerous part of the approach? > >> > >>> Wouldn't > >>> it be more reasonable to only register those which are used with Java > >>> services? > >> > >> Correct. Will do it. > >> > >>> Registering every .NET type as a Java type can lead to typeId > collisions > >> and break existing user code, > >> > >> For Service and Compute API binary type registration both in Java and > .Net > >> will happen anyway. > >> It’s required just to get things work. > >> > >>> 12 янв. 2021 г., в 20:31, Igor Sapego <isap...@apache.org> написал(а): > >>> > >>> Agree with Pavel, this should be disabled by default. > >>> > >>> To me it looks pretty dangerous as users do not explicitly control > what's > >>> going to be > >>> registered and it could lead to hard-to-debug mistakes when wrong > classes > >>> get > >>> registered or with wrong names. Also it can be hard to use with classes > >>> that should > >>> not be registered at all, which is often the case because not everyone > >> use > >>> .NET client > >>> with Java services. > >>> > >>> To me it looks familiar to another of our features - peer class > loading, > >>> which is disabled > >>> by default for similar reasons. > >>> > >>> Also, why register types which are used as method arguments for any > >>> service? Wouldn't > >>> it be more reasonable to only register those which are used with Java > >>> services? > >>> > >>> Best Regards, > >>> Igor > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 7:35 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Nikolay, > >>>> > >>>> I think this behavior should be opt-in - let's add a flag to > >>>> BinaryConfiguration. > >>>> Registering every .NET type as a Java type can lead to typeId > collisions > >>>> and break existing user code, > >>>> so we can't enable this by default. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Ignite stores typeId -> className mappings separately for Java and > .NET > >>>> [1]. > >>>> Separate maps were introduced because C# and Java have different > naming > >>>> conventions, > >>>> typically you have org.foo.bar.Person in Java and Foo.Bar.Person in > >> .NET, > >>>> so we allow the users to map two different type names to the same > typeId > >>>> with a custom name or id mapper. > >>>> > >>>> This proposal says we should always put Foo.Bar.Person from .NET to > the > >>>> Java mapping, > >>>> in the hope that there is a class with that name in Java, which is a > >> very > >>>> rare use case. > >>>> > >>>> [1] > >>>> > org.apache.ignite.internal.MarshallerContextImpl#registerClassName(byte, > >>>> int, java.lang.String, boolean) > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 4:56 PM Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hello, Igniters. > >>>>> > >>>>> Currently, in case of usage .Net platform client it’s required for > the > >>>>> user to explicitly register each custom type. > >>>>> > >>>>> ``` > >>>>> _marsh = new Marshaller(new BinaryConfiguration > >>>>> { > >>>>> TypeConfigurations = new List<BinaryTypeConfiguration> > >>>>> { > >>>>> new BinaryTypeConfiguration(typeof (Address)), > >>>>> new BinaryTypeConfiguration(typeof (TestModel)) > >>>>> } > >>>>> }); > >>>>> ``` > >>>>> > >>>>> Note, we have a special public interface to map java type to .net > >> types - > >>>>> `IBinaryNameMapper` > >>>>> > >>>>> ``` > >>>>> public interface IBinaryNameMapper > >>>>> { > >>>>> string GetTypeName(string name); > >>>>> string GetFieldName(string name); > >>>>> } > >>>>> } > >>>>> ``` > >>>>> > >>>>> Users found this approach annoying and not convenient. > >>>>> So, recently we made a several improvements for the Service API to > >>>>> implicitly register each custom type from service method arguments. > >> [1], > >>>>> [2], [3] > >>>>> For now, user can just call Java service from .Net without any > >> additional > >>>>> configuration in case FQN NameMapper used. > >>>>> > >>>>> I propose to extends approach with the implicit binary type > >> registration > >>>>> to all APIs and prepare PR for it [4]. > >>>>> > >>>>> What do you think? > >>>>> > >>>>> [1] > >>>>> > >>>> > >> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/35f551c023a12b3570d65c803d10c89480f7d5e4 > >>>>> [2] > >>>>> > >>>> > >> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/6d02e32e7f049e4f78f7abd37f4ff91d77f738c2 > >>>>> [3] > >>>>> > >>>> > >> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/c2204cda29e70294cc93756eabc844b64e07a42e > >>>>> [4] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/8635 > >>>> > >> > >> > >
