James, Yes, you described Ignite.NET architecture correctly. It provides native .NET API and marshalling layer. All infrastructure-related work is performed by C++/Java code.
Vladimir. On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 12:52 PM, jamesgibbs100 <jamesgibbs...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Vladimir, > > Thank you for taking the time to get back to me. > > Referring to : > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/C-and-NET-td2403.html > > /"These are not basic client APIs, but rather is a full-blown in-memory > data > fabric for .NET and C++ users. The goal is that users of these languages > will not have to write any Java code at all in order to use any Apache > Ignite features"/ > > From the above, I was expecting .NET to have a 100% native implementation, > however, reviewing the codebase led me to understand .NET was delegating > through JNI to a JVM for core functionality. > > In a trivial case, a single node launched in embedded mode, I was surprised > to see the code attempted to create a JVM when I had no intention of using > one - this was my lack of understanding of the architecture. > > So, my question whilst motivated by performance, is more concerned with > confirming the above description of how the .NET client is implemented. > > Is the above assumption/approximation correct ? > > Thanks again > James > > > > > Vladimir Ozerov wrote > > James, > > > > My last statement is a bit confusing. What I wanted to say is that > > normally > > both Java and .Net spend comparable time on serialization. > > > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Vladimir Ozerov < > > > vozerov@ > > > > > > wrote: > > > >> James, > >> > >> Ignite is distributed application and both Java and .Net require > >> marshalling to pass data between nodes. Therefore, in the vast majority > >> of > >> scenarios .Net has marshalling overhead comparable to Java version. > >> > >> Vladimir. > >> > >> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 8:46 PM, James Gibbs < > > > jamesgibbs100@ > > > > > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi there > >>> > >>> I'm looking to understand more about the .NET implementation for > Ignite. > >>> > >>> The .NET code appears to require a JVM and C++ code to talk through > JNI, > >>> so I am guessing that the main work load is still performed by Java > code > >>> and hence .NET code suffers from marshalling overheads etc. > >>> > >>> Is this the case ? > >>> > >>> Thanks in advance > >>> James > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Native-NET-tp1689p1699.html > Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
