IEP-54: Schema-first approach for 3.0

[Andrew Mashenkov]

Ilya,

Ignitectl could use SQL query with ALTER command, right?
I'm not sure we have to bother about it.
Anyway, one can define hierarchical properties and implement parser which
could create a schema using public API schema builders.

On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 12:02 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hello!
>
> Is there a way to define schema via ignitectl utility and its
> hierarchical properties? How would it look like?
>
> Regards,
> --
> Ilya Kasnacheev
>
>
> пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 17:40, Andrey Mashenkov <[hidden email]
> >:
>
> > Hi, Igniters.
> >
> > We all know that the current QueryEntity API is not convenient and needs
> to
> > be reworked.
> > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema configuration public API for
> > Ignite 3.0.
> >
> > New schema configuration uses Builder pattern, which looks more
> comfortable
> > to use.
> >
> > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package with the API itself, and a
> draft
> > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
> > and a test that demonstrates how the API could be used.
> >
> > Please note:
> >
> > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with static factory methods.
> > * The implementation is decoupled and can be easily extracted to separate
> > module if we decide to do so.
> > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are missed, they will be added
> lately
> > in separate tickes.
> > * Index configuration extends marker interface that makes possible to
> > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
> > Hopfully, we could add a persistent geo-indices support in future.
> > * Supposedly, current table schema can be changed via builder-like
> > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See 'TableModificationBuilder'
> for
> > details.
> > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have 'toBuilder()' converter for that
> > purpose as it is a Schema Manager responsibility to create mutator
> objects
> > from the current schema,
> > but implementing the Schema manager is out of scope and will be designed
> > within the next task.
> > * Interfaces implementations are out of scope. I did not intend to merge
> > them right now, but for test/demostration purposes.
> >
> > It is NOT the final version and some may be changed before the first
> > release of course.
> > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed with this approach or some
> > issues should be resolved at first.
> >
> > Any thoughts or objections?
> > Are interfaces good enough to be merged within the current ticket?
> >
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types:
> > >
> > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
> > > 2. It requires adding new types to the internal representation,
> protocol,
> > > e.t.c.
> > > 3. internal representation should be the same as we keep sign types. So
> > it
> > > will not requires more memory
> > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such types for platforms which not
> > > support unsigned types. For example, a user could derive -6 value in
> Java
> > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits perspective will be right). I
> > think
> > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such cases, especially it will be
> bad
> > > for unsigned long when we require returns BigInteger type.
> > > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix for new types like a
> '250u' -
> > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
> > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive comparison logic for indexes
> > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for expressions. I think it not
> > > possible for the current H2 engine and probably possible for the new
> > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from anybody who involved in this
> part
> > >
> > > WDYT?
> > >
> > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >:
> > >
> > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0: once we the actual type
> > > > information, we can make proper runtime adjustments and conversions
> to
> > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will be just a bit more
> expensive.
> > > >
> > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
> > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons and so on are broken
> > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned this somewhere above.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document that SQL is not supported on
> > > those
> > > > > types,
> > > > > end of story.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable request. I thought about this
> > > when
> > > > I
> > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add these types right
> away.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with .NET
> and
> > > C++
> > > > :)
> > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually works as expected, it needs
> > some
> > > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns are false):
> > > > > >
> > > > > >    - It's true that equality check works properly, but for SQL
> > range
> > > > > >    queries it will break unless some special care is taken on
> Java
> > > > side:
> > > > > > for
> > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will be converted to -1,
> > which
> > > > will
> > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we don't have unsigned types now,
> I
> > > > doubt
> > > > > it
> > > > > >    works.
> > > > > >    - There is an obvious cross-platform data loss when
> "intuitive"
> > > type
> > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8 corresponds to byte type in
> .NET,
> > > but
> > > > to
> > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have to use short type in Java,
> > and
> > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >    will also need to take care of the range check during
> > > > serialization).
> > > > > I
> > > > > >    think we can even allow to try to deserialize a value into
> > > arbitrary
> > > > > > type,
> > > > > >    but throw an exception if the range is out of bounds.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
> > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once all the details are
> > settled
> > > > > here?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't be treated correctly
> for
> > > now
> > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think we could make "true" support for unsigned types, but
> they
> > > > will
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
> > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map uint64 to Java long
> > > primitive,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > BigInteger only.
> > > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64 to Java long, but treat
> > > negative
> > > > > > > values in a different way to preserve correct ordering.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > These limitations will affect only mixed environments when .Net
> > and
> > > > > Java
> > > > > > > used to access the data.
> > > > > > > Will this solution address your issues?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with .NET
> > and
> > > > C++
> > > > > :)
> > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as cache keys and values, as
> > > fields
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > properties,
> > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y clauses) - it works
> > > > > transparently
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > the users.
> > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats those values as
> > corresponding
> > > > > signed
> > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in some cases only because
> > there
> > > > are
> > > > > no
> > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very simple change to the
> protocol
> > -
> > > > add
> > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as signed counterparts.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise representation is
> the
> > > > same)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a uByte field and map it
> > to
> > > > > > 'uint8'
> > > > > > > > > column.
> > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to "250" and put the object
> > into a
> > > > > > table,
> > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a single byte 'int8' column.
> > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it to directly the Java
> > > object
> > > > > > field
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8 type to Java 'short'
> type
> > > > > > > > > because the one expected to see "250" as a value which
> > doesn't
> > > > fit
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > signed type.
> > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a BigInteger field in Java.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat column value as Java 'byte' as
> > is,
> > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a negative value, so it should
> be
> > > cast
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > short
> > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger for uint64)
> > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will require a different
> comparator.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a good idea.
> > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the simple approach I
> > described?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing range for unsigned types
> > then
> > > we
> > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > add a
> > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on schema level (like
> > > > nullability
> > > > > > > flag)
> > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types in storage.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate storage type-system and
> > binary
> > > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of type will match 1 to 1
> with
> > > > > storage
> > > > > > > > > (native)
> > > > > > > > > > > type.
> > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either have a separate type id or
> > > treat
> > > > > > > > > serialized
> > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed or unsigned flag).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever foresee the consequences of
> > > using
> > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned types perfectly works
> > with
> > > > some
> > > > > > > > > database,
> > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite successor confession with our
> > > > > "native"
> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he can use the power of Ignite
> > > > Compute
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either fail to use his unsigned
> > data
> > > > on
> > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > due
> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due to natural Java type system
> > > > > > limitations
> > > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively supported types with possible
> > value
> > > > > > ranges
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
> > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is what trade-off we found
> > > acceptable:
> > > > > > > > narrowing
> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use types of wider range on
> > systems
> > > > like
> > > > > > > Java.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor Sapego <
> > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so hard to implement
> > > comparison
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not seem to be a big
> issue
> > > > from
> > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned types from Java - I
> think,
> > > if
> > > > a
> > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to interact with it from
> Java
> > he
> > > > > knows
> > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from platforms where they
> have
> > > > native
> > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > widely
> > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where users currently have
> > to
> > > > > make a
> > > > > > > > > manual
> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > > casting
> > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using unsigned types when they use
> > > > Ignite.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for those types (basically,
> > just
> > > > add
> > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise
> representation
> > > is
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > same)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned integers, so we can
> > > > simply
> > > > > > say
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative comparison is not supported
> > in
> > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > (equality
> > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have i8 or int8 instead of
> > > > Integer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't address the issue.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types should be portable across
> > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > systems
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type support.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is that unsigned types cover
> > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > ranges.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to introduce a uLong.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big deal to add uLong type
> > > > support
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > storage
> > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and then use it in e.g.
> > .Net
> > > > > only.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support it in e.g. Java?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range is about (2^-63 ..
> > > 2^63)
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > range
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to restrict range to (0 ..
> > > > 2^63).
> > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but doesn't look like a
> > > 'real'
> > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse when the user will use
> > > uByte,
> > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > limitation
> > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map unsigned types to a
> > type
> > > of
> > > > > > wider
> > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative values. E.g. uLong to
> > > > > BigInteger.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive Java type for Long
> here.
> > > > > > However,
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8 bytes, but have a
> > > special
> > > > > > > > comparator
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid unwanted deserialization.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of "long, short, byte" in
> > the
> > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style, which is concise and
> > > > > unambiguous:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM Igor Sapego <
> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support that. Also, if we are
> aiming
> > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger platform-independance,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may want to support
> > > bit-notation
> > > > > > > (int32,
> > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a different type on different
> > > > > platforms
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often when using ODBC for
> > example).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM Pavel
> Tupitsyn
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should support unsigned data
> > types:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have them, but many other
> > > languages
> > > > > do,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing number of thin clients
> > > this
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in current Ignite.NET
> > > implementation
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain when it comes to
> > > > metadata,
> > > > > > > binary
> > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to deserialize int as uint when
> > you
> > > > > have
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > class,
> > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM Andrey
> > > > Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both serializers use
> reflection
> > > > API.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will allow users to configure
> > > > static
> > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > along
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still need to validate
> user
> > > > > classes
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > client
> > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in the grid  and
> > reflection
> > > > API
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few articles on the
> internet
> > > on
> > > > > how
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task for supporting
> GraalVM,
> > > and
> > > > > > maybe
> > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM will suggest a
> > solution
> > > > or
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is found, we could allow
> > > users
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I don't think it is a
> good
> > > idea
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > expose
> > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the public.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM Denis
> > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the update,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the serializers take into
> > > > > > consideration
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native-image-generation feature of
> > GraalVM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current binary marshaller, we
> > > can't
> > > > > even
> > > > > > > > > > generate
> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using our thin client
> APIs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM Andrey
> > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to continue discussion of
> > IEP-54
> > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who is interested had a
> > > > chance
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to ask
> > questions
> > > > and
> > > > > > > share
> > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a prototype of
> serializer
> > > [2]
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I compared 2 approaches
> to
> > > > > > > > (de)serialize
> > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java reflection/unsafe API and
> > > similar
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second one generates
> serializer
> > > for
> > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library for compilation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows better results in
> > > > > benchmarks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go with it as default
> > > > > serializer
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation as a fallback if
> someone
> > > > will
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of tasks under the
> > > > > umbrella
> > > > > > > > ticket
> > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to create more tickets
> > for
> > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > manager
> > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation, but would like to
> > clarify
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > details.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought schemaManager on each node
> > > should
> > > > > > held:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping of "schema
> version"
> > > <-->
> > > > > > > > validated
> > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide schema changes
> > history.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client side. Before any
> > key-value
> > > > API
> > > > > > > > > operation
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a given key-value pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no local-mapping exists
> > for a
> > > > > given
> > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema has a more recent
> > > > version
> > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be validated against the
> latest
> > > > > version
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object doesn't fit to the
> latest
> > > > schema
> > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > depends
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail the operation
> > ('strict'
> > > > > mode)
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a new schema version
> should
> > > be
> > > > > > > > propagated
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server side we usually have no
> > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > classes
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change history is available
> > > and a
> > > > > > tuple
> > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to upgrade any
> received
> > > > tuple
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > last
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow nodes to send
> > > key-value
> > > > > > pairs
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't receive a schema update
> > yet)
> > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > reverting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node with newer classes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the
> same?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Ivan
> > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not ignore history. We
> had
> > a
> > > > > thread
> > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can resume it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00, Denis
> > Magda
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks for
> > > > explaining.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we need to have a
> > separate
> > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms substitution. I'll
> > > > > appreciate
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing pointers to any relevant
> > IEPs
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > reasoning
> > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM
> > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the wording in the IEP
> is
> > a
> > > > > little
> > > > > > > bit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you should not create
> nested
> > > > POJOs,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO that is mapped to a
> > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this correct? Please
> let
> > me
> > > > > know
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the "cache" term, I agree
> > > that
> > > > it
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can replace it with.
> > "Table"
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > tightly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional in our case. Do
> > you
> > > > want
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > create a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM
> > Denis
> > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked the IEP again and
> > > have a
> > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > questions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects and
> > > > > collections
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should either be
> > > > inlined
> > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > schema,
> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL code
> > > snippet
> > > > > > > showing
> > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to work?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep using the terms
> > > "cache"
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right time to discuss an
> > > > alternate
> > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the "table" should
> > stay
> > > > and
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one of the primary
> > APIs
> > > > in
> > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM
> > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your point. I agree
> that
> > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > automatic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last territory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we support
> > automatic
> > > > > > > > evolution,
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a cache without
> schema
> > > and
> > > > > > > > inferring
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other words, we can have both
> > > > > > > > "schema-first"
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59
> AM
> > > > Alexey
> > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got your
> concern
> > > > now.
> > > > > As
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > terminology, I am
> absolutely
> > > fine
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the approach best. Dynamic
> or
> > > > > > evolving
> > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > corresponding changes to
> the
> > > IEP
> > > > > once
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > settle
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в
> 11:33,
> > > Ivan
> > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for your
> answer!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My understanding is a
> > little
> > > > bit
> > > > > > > > > different.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > definitely should be
> > > possible.
> > > > > But
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is updated". I
> > treat a
> > > > > > common
> > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data manipulation
> > > > operations
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > clearly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > interesting capabilities,
> > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > preventing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data operations,
> > > > > > restricting
> > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first means that
> > > > schema
> > > > > > > exists
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is compliant with it -
> > that's
> > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last approach
> > > > mentioned
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is
> inferred
> > > from
> > > > > > data.
> > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing approach?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would like to say,
> > that
> > > > my
> > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > terminology. And I
> suppose
> > if
> > > > it
> > > > > > > > confuses
> > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused as well. My
> > feeling
> > > is
> > > > > > > closer
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47
> GMT+03:00,
> > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an issue
> with
> > > > that.
> > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance and all the
> > stored
> > > > data
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > compliant
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is proposed. There are
> no
> > > > > > > > restrictions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at
> > 9:52
> > > > PM
> > > > > > Ivan
> > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit
> > confused
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > My
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see
> > part
> > > X
> > > > > Semi
> > > > > > > > > > > Structured
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema"
> > > approach
> > > > > as a
> > > > > > > > kind
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53
> > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you
> > > please
> > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case
> > for
> > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so,
> > > what
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
> > > > understanding,
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing
> > something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes, if
> > all
> > > > the
> > > > > > ORM
> > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > internally, then
> they
> > > can
> > > > > > easily
> > > > > > > > > > > translate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE
> > statement
> > > > that
> > > > > > > lists
> > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data
> > integration
> > > is
> > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > based
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be improved once
> > the
> > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of
> > usability
> > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would revise the
> > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say if
> > it's
> > > > > used
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind,
> I'll
> > > > loop
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > long
> > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support for
> > > > Micornaut
> > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came across some
> > > > challenges.
> > > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > > > > watch
> > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite
> 3.0.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020
> > at
> > > > 5:11
> > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally
> speaking, I
> > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the issue
> > if
> > > > > > > duplicate
> > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be
> > created
> > > > for
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > cache,
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the
> schema
> > > > will
> > > > > > > define
> > > > > > > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which fields
> are
> > > > > included
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be
> > compliant
> > > > with
> > > > > > > this,
> > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a set
> of
> > > > > > records,
> > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you
> > > please
> > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case
> > for
> > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so,
> > > what
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
> > > > understanding,
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing
> > something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31,
> 2020
> > at
> > > > > 2:08
> > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would propose
> > > adding
> > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > > point
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to the
> ORM
> > > > > > frameworks
> > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the
> > > storage
> > > > > > engine
> > > > > > > > > > > requires
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones that
> > > > > complicate
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially if a
> > key
> > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > comprises
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice
> if
> > > the
> > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single entity
> > object
> > > > when
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > comes
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a key
> > and
> > > > > > value.
> > > > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the essential
> > > > public
> > > > > > APIs
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > single-entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you
> think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28,
> > 2020
> > > at
> > > > > > 3:50
> > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the big
> > > > changes
> > > > > > > > proposed
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first
> > > > > approach".
> > > > > > To
> > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this
> change:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a
> > look
> > > > and
> > > > > > let
> > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions, or
> > > > > > objections.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >
>

--
Best regards,
Andrey V. Mashenkov

[Andrew Mashenkov]

Michael, thanks for feedback.

1. However, there is no decision approved by the community, but I heard a
lot about it would be nice to have one table\schema per cache.
Actually, we already have CacheGroup, a very useful feature that allows us
to share memory region/persistence files between caches and resolves many
performance issues.
AFAIK, CacheGroup idea will be present in Ignite 3.0, but may be slightly
reworked regarding a new ideology.

Cache with arbitrary objects was always a headache and this is totally
unusable for SQL.
You ask a good question about pure KV-case. I think we could allow users to
create a schemaless table for arbitrary objects, but it will NOT be
possible to use it in SQL.
There is a big question how to serialize arbitrary objects correctly and
effectively. I suggest storing arbitrary objects as byte[] or kind of
blobs.

Looking forward, users will want to access arbitrary fields of such objects
and will need a BinaryObject interface, but on this step we have to deal
with some schema...
So, I think we can go with one of next ways
* treating KV objects as blob/byte[]
* strict schema approach, schema is created and propagated to grid on first
object put and can never be changed until table destroyed.
* use some kind of BinaryObject with a schema in footer, that may have huge
overhead.

2. One can use SQL or SchemaBuilder or generate schema from Class using
annotations.
I thought it should be possible to pass the result of the schema
builder/generator to initial configuration or to createTable(schema)
method.
What kind of script do you mean?

3. Generally, no. With a strict schema mode it is not possible to do it.
With live-schema mode we could make some trivial conversions e.g. int->long
transparently, but change int->date looks impossible for automatic
conversion in run-time.
Offline conversion utils for persistence files look possible for any
changes.

I think the next sequence of user actions can be applied to change field
type:
* Add new_field with new type. This will up a schema version.
* Change mapping on all nodes nodes to write to new_field, but read from
old_field then convert if needed.
This allows the user to read/convert values saved before the rising schema
version.
* Start scan query to copy/convert old_field data to new one. No node will
write with the old schema version at this point.
* Old_field can be safely dropped. This will up the schema version.
* Rename new_field to old_field via change mapping on nodes. Yes, once
again.
Obviously, users may need to update Java classes for this. In fact, they
will do it twice.

Ok, a rename field command should be added to the schema modification API.

4. We don't need BinaryMarshaller with a new approach. What purpose do you
need a BinaryMarshaller for?
5. Yes, strict schema mode is what you are looking for.


On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 10:22 AM Michael Cherkasov <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I reviewed the mail thread and proposal page and I still don't fully
> understand what is going to be changed, I would really appreciate it if you
> will answer a few questions:
>
> 1. Are you going to leave only one schema per cache? if so, will be there
> an option to have a table with arbitrary objects(pure KV case)?
> 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0 have to define schema? SchemaBuilder
> and SQL only? Is there an option to put the schema definition to the
> configuration?(I really don't like this, I would prefer to have
> separate scripts to create schemas)
> 3. Is there a way to change field type? if yes, can it be done in runtime?
> 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going to be re-worked too, is there any
> IEP for this?
> 5. I don't like automatic schema evaluation when a new field is added
> automatically on record put, so is there a way to prohibit this behavior?
>  I think all schema changes should be done only explicitly except initial
> schema creation.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike.
>
> пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey Mashenkov <[hidden email]
> >:
>
> > Hi, Igniters.
> >
> > We all know that the current QueryEntity API is not convenient and needs
> to
> > be reworked.
> > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema configuration public API for
> > Ignite 3.0.
> >
> > New schema configuration uses Builder pattern, which looks more
> comfortable
> > to use.
> >
> > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package with the API itself, and a
> draft
> > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
> > and a test that demonstrates how the API could be used.
> >
> > Please note:
> >
> > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with static factory methods.
> > * The implementation is decoupled and can be easily extracted to separate
> > module if we decide to do so.
> > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are missed, they will be added
> lately
> > in separate tickes.
> > * Index configuration extends marker interface that makes possible to
> > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
> > Hopfully, we could add a persistent geo-indices support in future.
> > * Supposedly, current table schema can be changed via builder-like
> > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See 'TableModificationBuilder'
> for
> > details.
> > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have 'toBuilder()' converter for that
> > purpose as it is a Schema Manager responsibility to create mutator
> objects
> > from the current schema,
> > but implementing the Schema manager is out of scope and will be designed
> > within the next task.
> > * Interfaces implementations are out of scope. I did not intend to merge
> > them right now, but for test/demostration purposes.
> >
> > It is NOT the final version and some may be changed before the first
> > release of course.
> > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed with this approach or some
> > issues should be resolved at first.
> >
> > Any thoughts or objections?
> > Are interfaces good enough to be merged within the current ticket?
> >
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types:
> > >
> > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
> > > 2. It requires adding new types to the internal representation,
> protocol,
> > > e.t.c.
> > > 3. internal representation should be the same as we keep sign types. So
> > it
> > > will not requires more memory
> > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such types for platforms which not
> > > support unsigned types. For example, a user could derive -6 value in
> Java
> > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits perspective will be right). I
> > think
> > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such cases, especially it will be
> bad
> > > for unsigned long when we require returns BigInteger type.
> > > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix for new types like a
> '250u' -
> > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
> > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive comparison logic for indexes
> > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for expressions. I think it not
> > > possible for the current H2 engine and probably possible for the new
> > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from anybody who involved in this
> part
> > >
> > > WDYT?
> > >
> > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >:
> > >
> > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0: once we the actual type
> > > > information, we can make proper runtime adjustments and conversions
> to
> > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will be just a bit more
> expensive.
> > > >
> > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
> > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons and so on are broken
> > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned this somewhere above.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document that SQL is not supported on
> > > those
> > > > > types,
> > > > > end of story.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable request. I thought about this
> > > when
> > > > I
> > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add these types right
> away.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with .NET
> and
> > > C++
> > > > :)
> > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually works as expected, it needs
> > some
> > > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns are false):
> > > > > >
> > > > > >    - It's true that equality check works properly, but for SQL
> > range
> > > > > >    queries it will break unless some special care is taken on
> Java
> > > > side:
> > > > > > for
> > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will be converted to -1,
> > which
> > > > will
> > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we don't have unsigned types now,
> I
> > > > doubt
> > > > > it
> > > > > >    works.
> > > > > >    - There is an obvious cross-platform data loss when
> "intuitive"
> > > type
> > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8 corresponds to byte type in
> .NET,
> > > but
> > > > to
> > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have to use short type in Java,
> > and
> > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >    will also need to take care of the range check during
> > > > serialization).
> > > > > I
> > > > > >    think we can even allow to try to deserialize a value into
> > > arbitrary
> > > > > > type,
> > > > > >    but throw an exception if the range is out of bounds.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
> > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once all the details are
> > settled
> > > > > here?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't be treated correctly
> for
> > > now
> > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think we could make "true" support for unsigned types, but
> they
> > > > will
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
> > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map uint64 to Java long
> > > primitive,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > BigInteger only.
> > > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64 to Java long, but treat
> > > negative
> > > > > > > values in a different way to preserve correct ordering.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > These limitations will affect only mixed environments when .Net
> > and
> > > > > Java
> > > > > > > used to access the data.
> > > > > > > Will this solution address your issues?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with .NET
> > and
> > > > C++
> > > > > :)
> > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as cache keys and values, as
> > > fields
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > properties,
> > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y clauses) - it works
> > > > > transparently
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > the users.
> > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats those values as
> > corresponding
> > > > > signed
> > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in some cases only because
> > there
> > > > are
> > > > > no
> > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very simple change to the
> protocol
> > -
> > > > add
> > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as signed counterparts.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise representation is
> the
> > > > same)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a uByte field and map it
> > to
> > > > > > 'uint8'
> > > > > > > > > column.
> > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to "250" and put the object
> > into a
> > > > > > table,
> > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a single byte 'int8' column.
> > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it to directly the Java
> > > object
> > > > > > field
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8 type to Java 'short'
> type
> > > > > > > > > because the one expected to see "250" as a value which
> > doesn't
> > > > fit
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > signed type.
> > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a BigInteger field in Java.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat column value as Java 'byte' as
> > is,
> > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a negative value, so it should
> be
> > > cast
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > short
> > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger for uint64)
> > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will require a different
> comparator.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a good idea.
> > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the simple approach I
> > described?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing range for unsigned types
> > then
> > > we
> > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > add a
> > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on schema level (like
> > > > nullability
> > > > > > > flag)
> > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types in storage.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate storage type-system and
> > binary
> > > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of type will match 1 to 1
> with
> > > > > storage
> > > > > > > > > (native)
> > > > > > > > > > > type.
> > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either have a separate type id or
> > > treat
> > > > > > > > > serialized
> > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed or unsigned flag).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever foresee the consequences of
> > > using
> > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned types perfectly works
> > with
> > > > some
> > > > > > > > > database,
> > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite successor confession with our
> > > > > "native"
> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he can use the power of Ignite
> > > > Compute
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either fail to use his unsigned
> > data
> > > > on
> > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > due
> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due to natural Java type system
> > > > > > limitations
> > > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively supported types with possible
> > value
> > > > > > ranges
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
> > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is what trade-off we found
> > > acceptable:
> > > > > > > > narrowing
> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use types of wider range on
> > systems
> > > > like
> > > > > > > Java.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor Sapego <
> > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so hard to implement
> > > comparison
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not seem to be a big
> issue
> > > > from
> > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned types from Java - I
> think,
> > > if
> > > > a
> > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to interact with it from
> Java
> > he
> > > > > knows
> > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from platforms where they
> have
> > > > native
> > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > widely
> > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where users currently have
> > to
> > > > > make a
> > > > > > > > > manual
> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > > casting
> > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using unsigned types when they use
> > > > Ignite.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for those types (basically,
> > just
> > > > add
> > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise
> representation
> > > is
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > same)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned integers, so we can
> > > > simply
> > > > > > say
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative comparison is not supported
> > in
> > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > (equality
> > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have i8 or int8 instead of
> > > > Integer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't address the issue.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types should be portable across
> > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > systems
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type support.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is that unsigned types cover
> > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > ranges.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to introduce a uLong.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big deal to add uLong type
> > > > support
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > storage
> > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and then use it in e.g.
> > .Net
> > > > > only.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support it in e.g. Java?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range is about (2^-63 ..
> > > 2^63)
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > range
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to restrict range to (0 ..
> > > > 2^63).
> > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but doesn't look like a
> > > 'real'
> > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse when the user will use
> > > uByte,
> > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > limitation
> > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map unsigned types to a
> > type
> > > of
> > > > > > wider
> > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative values. E.g. uLong to
> > > > > BigInteger.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive Java type for Long
> here.
> > > > > > However,
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8 bytes, but have a
> > > special
> > > > > > > > comparator
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid unwanted deserialization.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of "long, short, byte" in
> > the
> > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style, which is concise and
> > > > > unambiguous:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM Igor Sapego <
> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support that. Also, if we are
> aiming
> > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger platform-independance,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may want to support
> > > bit-notation
> > > > > > > (int32,
> > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a different type on different
> > > > > platforms
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often when using ODBC for
> > example).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM Pavel
> Tupitsyn
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should support unsigned data
> > types:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have them, but many other
> > > languages
> > > > > do,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing number of thin clients
> > > this
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in current Ignite.NET
> > > implementation
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain when it comes to
> > > > metadata,
> > > > > > > binary
> > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to deserialize int as uint when
> > you
> > > > > have
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > class,
> > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM Andrey
> > > > Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both serializers use
> reflection
> > > > API.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will allow users to configure
> > > > static
> > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > along
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still need to validate
> user
> > > > > classes
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > client
> > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in the grid  and
> > reflection
> > > > API
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few articles on the
> internet
> > > on
> > > > > how
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task for supporting
> GraalVM,
> > > and
> > > > > > maybe
> > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM will suggest a
> > solution
> > > > or
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is found, we could allow
> > > users
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I don't think it is a
> good
> > > idea
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > expose
> > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the public.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM Denis
> > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the update,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the serializers take into
> > > > > > consideration
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native-image-generation feature of
> > GraalVM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current binary marshaller, we
> > > can't
> > > > > even
> > > > > > > > > > generate
> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using our thin client
> APIs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM Andrey
> > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to continue discussion of
> > IEP-54
> > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who is interested had a
> > > > chance
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to ask
> > questions
> > > > and
> > > > > > > share
> > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a prototype of
> serializer
> > > [2]
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I compared 2 approaches
> to
> > > > > > > > (de)serialize
> > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java reflection/unsafe API and
> > > similar
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second one generates
> serializer
> > > for
> > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library for compilation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows better results in
> > > > > benchmarks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go with it as default
> > > > > serializer
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation as a fallback if
> someone
> > > > will
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of tasks under the
> > > > > umbrella
> > > > > > > > ticket
> > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to create more tickets
> > for
> > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > manager
> > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation, but would like to
> > clarify
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > details.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought schemaManager on each node
> > > should
> > > > > > held:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping of "schema
> version"
> > > <-->
> > > > > > > > validated
> > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide schema changes
> > history.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client side. Before any
> > key-value
> > > > API
> > > > > > > > > operation
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a given key-value pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no local-mapping exists
> > for a
> > > > > given
> > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema has a more recent
> > > > version
> > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be validated against the
> latest
> > > > > version
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object doesn't fit to the
> latest
> > > > schema
> > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > depends
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail the operation
> > ('strict'
> > > > > mode)
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a new schema version
> should
> > > be
> > > > > > > > propagated
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server side we usually have no
> > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > classes
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change history is available
> > > and a
> > > > > > tuple
> > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to upgrade any
> received
> > > > tuple
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > last
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow nodes to send
> > > key-value
> > > > > > pairs
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't receive a schema update
> > yet)
> > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > reverting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node with newer classes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the
> same?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Ivan
> > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not ignore history. We
> had
> > a
> > > > > thread
> > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can resume it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00, Denis
> > Magda
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks for
> > > > explaining.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we need to have a
> > separate
> > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms substitution. I'll
> > > > > appreciate
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing pointers to any relevant
> > IEPs
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > reasoning
> > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM
> > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the wording in the IEP
> is
> > a
> > > > > little
> > > > > > > bit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you should not create
> nested
> > > > POJOs,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO that is mapped to a
> > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this correct? Please
> let
> > me
> > > > > know
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the "cache" term, I agree
> > > that
> > > > it
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can replace it with.
> > "Table"
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > tightly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional in our case. Do
> > you
> > > > want
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > create a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM
> > Denis
> > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked the IEP again and
> > > have a
> > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > questions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects and
> > > > > collections
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should either be
> > > > inlined
> > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > schema,
> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL code
> > > snippet
> > > > > > > showing
> > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to work?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep using the terms
> > > "cache"
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right time to discuss an
> > > > alternate
> > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the "table" should
> > stay
> > > > and
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one of the primary
> > APIs
> > > > in
> > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM
> > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your point. I agree
> that
> > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > automatic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last territory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we support
> > automatic
> > > > > > > > evolution,
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a cache without
> schema
> > > and
> > > > > > > > inferring
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other words, we can have both
> > > > > > > > "schema-first"
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59
> AM
> > > > Alexey
> > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got your
> concern
> > > > now.
> > > > > As
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > terminology, I am
> absolutely
> > > fine
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the approach best. Dynamic
> or
> > > > > > evolving
> > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > corresponding changes to
> the
> > > IEP
> > > > > once
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > settle
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в
> 11:33,
> > > Ivan
> > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for your
> answer!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My understanding is a
> > little
> > > > bit
> > > > > > > > > different.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > definitely should be
> > > possible.
> > > > > But
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is updated". I
> > treat a
> > > > > > common
> > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data manipulation
> > > > operations
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > clearly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > interesting capabilities,
> > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > preventing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data operations,
> > > > > > restricting
> > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first means that
> > > > schema
> > > > > > > exists
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is compliant with it -
> > that's
> > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last approach
> > > > mentioned
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is
> inferred
> > > from
> > > > > > data.
> > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing approach?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would like to say,
> > that
> > > > my
> > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > terminology. And I
> suppose
> > if
> > > > it
> > > > > > > > confuses
> > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused as well. My
> > feeling
> > > is
> > > > > > > closer
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47
> GMT+03:00,
> > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an issue
> with
> > > > that.
> > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance and all the
> > stored
> > > > data
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > compliant
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is proposed. There are
> no
> > > > > > > > restrictions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at
> > 9:52
> > > > PM
> > > > > > Ivan
> > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit
> > confused
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > My
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see
> > part
> > > X
> > > > > Semi
> > > > > > > > > > > Structured
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema"
> > > approach
> > > > > as a
> > > > > > > > kind
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53
> > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you
> > > please
> > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case
> > for
> > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so,
> > > what
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
> > > > understanding,
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing
> > something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes, if
> > all
> > > > the
> > > > > > ORM
> > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > internally, then
> they
> > > can
> > > > > > easily
> > > > > > > > > > > translate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE
> > statement
> > > > that
> > > > > > > lists
> > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data
> > integration
> > > is
> > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > based
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be improved once
> > the
> > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of
> > usability
> > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would revise the
> > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say if
> > it's
> > > > > used
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind,
> I'll
> > > > loop
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > long
> > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support for
> > > > Micornaut
> > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came across some
> > > > challenges.
> > > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > > > > watch
> > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite
> 3.0.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020
> > at
> > > > 5:11
> > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally
> speaking, I
> > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the issue
> > if
> > > > > > > duplicate
> > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be
> > created
> > > > for
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > cache,
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the
> schema
> > > > will
> > > > > > > define
> > > > > > > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which fields
> are
> > > > > included
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be
> > compliant
> > > > with
> > > > > > > this,
> > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a set
> of
> > > > > > records,
> > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you
> > > please
> > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case
> > for
> > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so,
> > > what
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
> > > > understanding,
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing
> > something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31,
> 2020
> > at
> > > > > 2:08
> > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would propose
> > > adding
> > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > > point
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to the
> ORM
> > > > > > frameworks
> > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the
> > > storage
> > > > > > engine
> > > > > > > > > > > requires
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones that
> > > > > complicate
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially if a
> > key
> > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > comprises
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice
> if
> > > the
> > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single entity
> > object
> > > > when
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > comes
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a key
> > and
> > > > > > value.
> > > > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the essential
> > > > public
> > > > > > APIs
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > single-entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you
> think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28,
> > 2020
> > > at
> > > > > > 3:50
> > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the big
> > > > changes
> > > > > > > > proposed
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first
> > > > > approach".
> > > > > > To
> > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this
> change:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a
> > look
> > > > and
> > > > > > let
> > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions, or
> > > > > > objections.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >
>

--
Best regards,
Andrey V. Mashenkov

[Valentin Kulichenko]

Hi Mike,

Thanks for providing your feedback. Please see my comments below.

I would also encourage you to go through the IEP-54 [1] - it has a lot of
detail on the topic.

[1]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach

-Val

On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:22 PM Michael Cherkasov <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I reviewed the mail thread and proposal page and I still don't fully
> understand what is going to be changed, I would really appreciate it if you
> will answer a few questions:
>
> 1. Are you going to leave only one schema per cache? if so, will be there
> an option to have a table with arbitrary objects(pure KV case)?
>

My opinion is that KV case should be natively supported. I think this still
needs to be thought over, my current view on this is that we should have
separate APIs for KV and more generic storages. KV storage can be
implemented as a "table" with two BLOB fields where we will store
serialized key-value pairs. That would imply deserialization on read, but I
believe this is OK for KV use cases. I'm happy to hear other ideas though :)


> 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0 have to define schema? SchemaBuilder
> and SQL only? Is there an option to put the schema definition to the
> configuration?(I really don't like this, I would prefer to have
> separate scripts to create schemas)
>

There will be no such thing as a static configuration in the first place.
Tables and schemas are created in runtime. Even if there is a file provided
on node startup, this file is only applied in the scope of the 'start'
operation. All configurations will be stored in a meta storage available to
all nodes, as opposed to individual files.


> 3. Is there a way to change field type? if yes, can it be done in runtime?
>

Absolutely! IEP-54 has a whole section about schema evolution.


> 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going to be re-worked too, is there any
> IEP for this?
>

BinaryMarshaller as a tool for arbitrary object serialization will be gone,
but we will reuse a lot of its concept to implement an internal tuple
serialization mechanism. IEP-54 has the description of the proposed data
format.


> 5. I don't like automatic schema evaluation when a new field is added
> automatically on record put, so is there a way to prohibit this behavior?
>  I think all schema changes should be done only explicitly except initial
> schema creation.
>

The way I see it is that we should have two modes: schema-first and
schema-last. Schema-first means exactly what you've described - schemas are
defined and updated explicitly by the user. In the schema-last mode,
the user does not deal with schemas, as they are inferred from the data
inserted into tables. We should definitely not mix these modes - it has to
be one or another. And it probably makes sense to discuss which mode should
be the default one.

>
> Thanks,
> Mike.
>
> пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey Mashenkov <[hidden email]
> >:
>
> > Hi, Igniters.
> >
> > We all know that the current QueryEntity API is not convenient and needs
> to
> > be reworked.
> > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema configuration public API for
> > Ignite 3.0.
> >
> > New schema configuration uses Builder pattern, which looks more
> comfortable
> > to use.
> >
> > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package with the API itself, and a
> draft
> > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
> > and a test that demonstrates how the API could be used.
> >
> > Please note:
> >
> > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with static factory methods.
> > * The implementation is decoupled and can be easily extracted to separate
> > module if we decide to do so.
> > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are missed, they will be added
> lately
> > in separate tickes.
> > * Index configuration extends marker interface that makes possible to
> > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
> > Hopfully, we could add a persistent geo-indices support in future.
> > * Supposedly, current table schema can be changed via builder-like
> > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See 'TableModificationBuilder'
> for
> > details.
> > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have 'toBuilder()' converter for that
> > purpose as it is a Schema Manager responsibility to create mutator
> objects
> > from the current schema,
> > but implementing the Schema manager is out of scope and will be designed
> > within the next task.
> > * Interfaces implementations are out of scope. I did not intend to merge
> > them right now, but for test/demostration purposes.
> >
> > It is NOT the final version and some may be changed before the first
> > release of course.
> > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed with this approach or some
> > issues should be resolved at first.
> >
> > Any thoughts or objections?
> > Are interfaces good enough to be merged within the current ticket?
> >
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types:
> > >
> > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
> > > 2. It requires adding new types to the internal representation,
> protocol,
> > > e.t.c.
> > > 3. internal representation should be the same as we keep sign types. So
> > it
> > > will not requires more memory
> > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such types for platforms which not
> > > support unsigned types. For example, a user could derive -6 value in
> Java
> > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits perspective will be right). I
> > think
> > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such cases, especially it will be
> bad
> > > for unsigned long when we require returns BigInteger type.
> > > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix for new types like a
> '250u' -
> > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
> > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive comparison logic for indexes
> > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for expressions. I think it not
> > > possible for the current H2 engine and probably possible for the new
> > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from anybody who involved in this
> part
> > >
> > > WDYT?
> > >
> > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >:
> > >
> > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0: once we the actual type
> > > > information, we can make proper runtime adjustments and conversions
> to
> > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will be just a bit more
> expensive.
> > > >
> > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
> > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons and so on are broken
> > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned this somewhere above.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document that SQL is not supported on
> > > those
> > > > > types,
> > > > > end of story.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable request. I thought about this
> > > when
> > > > I
> > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add these types right
> away.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with .NET
> and
> > > C++
> > > > :)
> > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually works as expected, it needs
> > some
> > > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns are false):
> > > > > >
> > > > > >    - It's true that equality check works properly, but for SQL
> > range
> > > > > >    queries it will break unless some special care is taken on
> Java
> > > > side:
> > > > > > for
> > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will be converted to -1,
> > which
> > > > will
> > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we don't have unsigned types now,
> I
> > > > doubt
> > > > > it
> > > > > >    works.
> > > > > >    - There is an obvious cross-platform data loss when
> "intuitive"
> > > type
> > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8 corresponds to byte type in
> .NET,
> > > but
> > > > to
> > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have to use short type in Java,
> > and
> > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >    will also need to take care of the range check during
> > > > serialization).
> > > > > I
> > > > > >    think we can even allow to try to deserialize a value into
> > > arbitrary
> > > > > > type,
> > > > > >    but throw an exception if the range is out of bounds.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
> > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once all the details are
> > settled
> > > > > here?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't be treated correctly
> for
> > > now
> > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think we could make "true" support for unsigned types, but
> they
> > > > will
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
> > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map uint64 to Java long
> > > primitive,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > BigInteger only.
> > > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64 to Java long, but treat
> > > negative
> > > > > > > values in a different way to preserve correct ordering.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > These limitations will affect only mixed environments when .Net
> > and
> > > > > Java
> > > > > > > used to access the data.
> > > > > > > Will this solution address your issues?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with .NET
> > and
> > > > C++
> > > > > :)
> > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as cache keys and values, as
> > > fields
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > properties,
> > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y clauses) - it works
> > > > > transparently
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > the users.
> > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats those values as
> > corresponding
> > > > > signed
> > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in some cases only because
> > there
> > > > are
> > > > > no
> > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very simple change to the
> protocol
> > -
> > > > add
> > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as signed counterparts.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise representation is
> the
> > > > same)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a uByte field and map it
> > to
> > > > > > 'uint8'
> > > > > > > > > column.
> > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to "250" and put the object
> > into a
> > > > > > table,
> > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a single byte 'int8' column.
> > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it to directly the Java
> > > object
> > > > > > field
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8 type to Java 'short'
> type
> > > > > > > > > because the one expected to see "250" as a value which
> > doesn't
> > > > fit
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > signed type.
> > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a BigInteger field in Java.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat column value as Java 'byte' as
> > is,
> > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a negative value, so it should
> be
> > > cast
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > short
> > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger for uint64)
> > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will require a different
> comparator.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a good idea.
> > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the simple approach I
> > described?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing range for unsigned types
> > then
> > > we
> > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > add a
> > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on schema level (like
> > > > nullability
> > > > > > > flag)
> > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types in storage.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate storage type-system and
> > binary
> > > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of type will match 1 to 1
> with
> > > > > storage
> > > > > > > > > (native)
> > > > > > > > > > > type.
> > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either have a separate type id or
> > > treat
> > > > > > > > > serialized
> > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed or unsigned flag).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever foresee the consequences of
> > > using
> > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned types perfectly works
> > with
> > > > some
> > > > > > > > > database,
> > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite successor confession with our
> > > > > "native"
> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he can use the power of Ignite
> > > > Compute
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either fail to use his unsigned
> > data
> > > > on
> > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > due
> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due to natural Java type system
> > > > > > limitations
> > > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively supported types with possible
> > value
> > > > > > ranges
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
> > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is what trade-off we found
> > > acceptable:
> > > > > > > > narrowing
> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use types of wider range on
> > systems
> > > > like
> > > > > > > Java.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor Sapego <
> > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so hard to implement
> > > comparison
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not seem to be a big
> issue
> > > > from
> > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned types from Java - I
> think,
> > > if
> > > > a
> > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to interact with it from
> Java
> > he
> > > > > knows
> > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from platforms where they
> have
> > > > native
> > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > widely
> > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where users currently have
> > to
> > > > > make a
> > > > > > > > > manual
> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > > casting
> > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using unsigned types when they use
> > > > Ignite.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for those types (basically,
> > just
> > > > add
> > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise
> representation
> > > is
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > same)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned integers, so we can
> > > > simply
> > > > > > say
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative comparison is not supported
> > in
> > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > (equality
> > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have i8 or int8 instead of
> > > > Integer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't address the issue.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types should be portable across
> > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > systems
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type support.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is that unsigned types cover
> > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > ranges.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to introduce a uLong.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big deal to add uLong type
> > > > support
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > storage
> > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and then use it in e.g.
> > .Net
> > > > > only.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support it in e.g. Java?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range is about (2^-63 ..
> > > 2^63)
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > range
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to restrict range to (0 ..
> > > > 2^63).
> > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but doesn't look like a
> > > 'real'
> > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse when the user will use
> > > uByte,
> > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > limitation
> > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map unsigned types to a
> > type
> > > of
> > > > > > wider
> > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative values. E.g. uLong to
> > > > > BigInteger.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive Java type for Long
> here.
> > > > > > However,
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8 bytes, but have a
> > > special
> > > > > > > > comparator
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid unwanted deserialization.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of "long, short, byte" in
> > the
> > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style, which is concise and
> > > > > unambiguous:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM Igor Sapego <
> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support that. Also, if we are
> aiming
> > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger platform-independance,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may want to support
> > > bit-notation
> > > > > > > (int32,
> > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a different type on different
> > > > > platforms
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often when using ODBC for
> > example).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM Pavel
> Tupitsyn
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should support unsigned data
> > types:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have them, but many other
> > > languages
> > > > > do,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing number of thin clients
> > > this
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in current Ignite.NET
> > > implementation
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain when it comes to
> > > > metadata,
> > > > > > > binary
> > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to deserialize int as uint when
> > you
> > > > > have
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > class,
> > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM Andrey
> > > > Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both serializers use
> reflection
> > > > API.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will allow users to configure
> > > > static
> > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > along
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still need to validate
> user
> > > > > classes
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > client
> > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in the grid  and
> > reflection
> > > > API
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few articles on the
> internet
> > > on
> > > > > how
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task for supporting
> GraalVM,
> > > and
> > > > > > maybe
> > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM will suggest a
> > solution
> > > > or
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is found, we could allow
> > > users
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I don't think it is a
> good
> > > idea
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > expose
> > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the public.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM Denis
> > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the update,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the serializers take into
> > > > > > consideration
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native-image-generation feature of
> > GraalVM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current binary marshaller, we
> > > can't
> > > > > even
> > > > > > > > > > generate
> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using our thin client
> APIs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM Andrey
> > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to continue discussion of
> > IEP-54
> > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who is interested had a
> > > > chance
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to ask
> > questions
> > > > and
> > > > > > > share
> > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a prototype of
> serializer
> > > [2]
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I compared 2 approaches
> to
> > > > > > > > (de)serialize
> > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java reflection/unsafe API and
> > > similar
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second one generates
> serializer
> > > for
> > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library for compilation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows better results in
> > > > > benchmarks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go with it as default
> > > > > serializer
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation as a fallback if
> someone
> > > > will
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of tasks under the
> > > > > umbrella
> > > > > > > > ticket
> > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to create more tickets
> > for
> > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > manager
> > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation, but would like to
> > clarify
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > details.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought schemaManager on each node
> > > should
> > > > > > held:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping of "schema
> version"
> > > <-->
> > > > > > > > validated
> > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide schema changes
> > history.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client side. Before any
> > key-value
> > > > API
> > > > > > > > > operation
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a given key-value pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no local-mapping exists
> > for a
> > > > > given
> > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema has a more recent
> > > > version
> > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be validated against the
> latest
> > > > > version
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object doesn't fit to the
> latest
> > > > schema
> > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > depends
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail the operation
> > ('strict'
> > > > > mode)
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a new schema version
> should
> > > be
> > > > > > > > propagated
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server side we usually have no
> > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > classes
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change history is available
> > > and a
> > > > > > tuple
> > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to upgrade any
> received
> > > > tuple
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > last
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow nodes to send
> > > key-value
> > > > > > pairs
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't receive a schema update
> > yet)
> > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > reverting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node with newer classes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the
> same?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Ivan
> > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not ignore history. We
> had
> > a
> > > > > thread
> > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can resume it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00, Denis
> > Magda
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks for
> > > > explaining.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we need to have a
> > separate
> > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms substitution. I'll
> > > > > appreciate
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing pointers to any relevant
> > IEPs
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > reasoning
> > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM
> > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the wording in the IEP
> is
> > a
> > > > > little
> > > > > > > bit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you should not create
> nested
> > > > POJOs,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO that is mapped to a
> > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this correct? Please
> let
> > me
> > > > > know
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the "cache" term, I agree
> > > that
> > > > it
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can replace it with.
> > "Table"
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > tightly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional in our case. Do
> > you
> > > > want
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > create a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM
> > Denis
> > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked the IEP again and
> > > have a
> > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > questions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects and
> > > > > collections
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should either be
> > > > inlined
> > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > schema,
> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL code
> > > snippet
> > > > > > > showing
> > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to work?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep using the terms
> > > "cache"
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right time to discuss an
> > > > alternate
> > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the "table" should
> > stay
> > > > and
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one of the primary
> > APIs
> > > > in
> > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM
> > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your point. I agree
> that
> > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > automatic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last territory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we support
> > automatic
> > > > > > > > evolution,
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a cache without
> schema
> > > and
> > > > > > > > inferring
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other words, we can have both
> > > > > > > > "schema-first"
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59
> AM
> > > > Alexey
> > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got your
> concern
> > > > now.
> > > > > As
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > terminology, I am
> absolutely
> > > fine
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the approach best. Dynamic
> or
> > > > > > evolving
> > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > corresponding changes to
> the
> > > IEP
> > > > > once
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > settle
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в
> 11:33,
> > > Ivan
> > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for your
> answer!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My understanding is a
> > little
> > > > bit
> > > > > > > > > different.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > definitely should be
> > > possible.
> > > > > But
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is updated". I
> > treat a
> > > > > > common
> > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data manipulation
> > > > operations
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > clearly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > interesting capabilities,
> > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > preventing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data operations,
> > > > > > restricting
> > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first means that
> > > > schema
> > > > > > > exists
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is compliant with it -
> > that's
> > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last approach
> > > > mentioned
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is
> inferred
> > > from
> > > > > > data.
> > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing approach?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would like to say,
> > that
> > > > my
> > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > terminology. And I
> suppose
> > if
> > > > it
> > > > > > > > confuses
> > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused as well. My
> > feeling
> > > is
> > > > > > > closer
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47
> GMT+03:00,
> > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an issue
> with
> > > > that.
> > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance and all the
> > stored
> > > > data
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > compliant
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is proposed. There are
> no
> > > > > > > > restrictions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at
> > 9:52
> > > > PM
> > > > > > Ivan
> > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit
> > confused
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > My
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see
> > part
> > > X
> > > > > Semi
> > > > > > > > > > > Structured
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema"
> > > approach
> > > > > as a
> > > > > > > > kind
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53
> > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you
> > > please
> > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case
> > for
> > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so,
> > > what
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
> > > > understanding,
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing
> > something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes, if
> > all
> > > > the
> > > > > > ORM
> > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > internally, then
> they
> > > can
> > > > > > easily
> > > > > > > > > > > translate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE
> > statement
> > > > that
> > > > > > > lists
> > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data
> > integration
> > > is
> > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > based
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be improved once
> > the
> > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of
> > usability
> > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would revise the
> > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say if
> > it's
> > > > > used
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind,
> I'll
> > > > loop
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > long
> > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support for
> > > > Micornaut
> > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came across some
> > > > challenges.
> > > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > > > > watch
> > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite
> 3.0.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020
> > at
> > > > 5:11
> > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally
> speaking, I
> > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the issue
> > if
> > > > > > > duplicate
> > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be
> > created
> > > > for
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > cache,
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the
> schema
> > > > will
> > > > > > > define
> > > > > > > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which fields
> are
> > > > > included
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be
> > compliant
> > > > with
> > > > > > > this,
> > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a set
> of
> > > > > > records,
> > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you
> > > please
> > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case
> > for
> > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so,
> > > what
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
> > > > understanding,
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing
> > something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31,
> 2020
> > at
> > > > > 2:08
> > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would propose
> > > adding
> > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > > point
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to the
> ORM
> > > > > > frameworks
> > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the
> > > storage
> > > > > > engine
> > > > > > > > > > > requires
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones that
> > > > > complicate
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially if a
> > key
> > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > comprises
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice
> if
> > > the
> > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single entity
> > object
> > > > when
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > comes
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a key
> > and
> > > > > > value.
> > > > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the essential
> > > > public
> > > > > > APIs
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > single-entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you
> think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28,
> > 2020
> > > at
> > > > > > 3:50
> > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the big
> > > > changes
> > > > > > > > proposed
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first
> > > > > approach".
> > > > > > To
> > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this
> change:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a
> > look
> > > > and
> > > > > > let
> > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions, or
> > > > > > objections.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >
>

[Ilya Kasnacheev]

Hello!

I'm not sure why you will need a schema definition API in Java if it's not
available with ignitectl?

After all, you can run SQL with Java as well. If we plan that every cache
is also a SQL table, why do we need the API being discussed? If it is
needed, how to rationalize that not all platforms support it?

Regards,
--
Ilya Kasnacheev


вт, 29 дек. 2020 г. в 13:11, Andrey Mashenkov <[hidden email]>:

> Ilya,
>
> Ignitectl could use SQL query with ALTER command, right?
> I'm not sure we have to bother about it.
> Anyway, one can define hierarchical properties and implement parser which
> could create a schema using public API schema builders.
>
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 12:02 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> [hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello!
> >
> > Is there a way to define schema via ignitectl utility and its
> > hierarchical properties? How would it look like?
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Ilya Kasnacheev
> >
> >
> > пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 17:40, Andrey Mashenkov <
> [hidden email]
> > >:
> >
> > > Hi, Igniters.
> > >
> > > We all know that the current QueryEntity API is not convenient and
> needs
> > to
> > > be reworked.
> > > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema configuration public API for
> > > Ignite 3.0.
> > >
> > > New schema configuration uses Builder pattern, which looks more
> > comfortable
> > > to use.
> > >
> > > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package with the API itself, and a
> > draft
> > > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
> > > and a test that demonstrates how the API could be used.
> > >
> > > Please note:
> > >
> > > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with static factory methods.
> > > * The implementation is decoupled and can be easily extracted to
> separate
> > > module if we decide to do so.
> > > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are missed, they will be added
> > lately
> > > in separate tickes.
> > > * Index configuration extends marker interface that makes possible to
> > > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
> > > Hopfully, we could add a persistent geo-indices support in future.
> > > * Supposedly, current table schema can be changed via builder-like
> > > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See 'TableModificationBuilder'
> > for
> > > details.
> > > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have 'toBuilder()' converter for that
> > > purpose as it is a Schema Manager responsibility to create mutator
> > objects
> > > from the current schema,
> > > but implementing the Schema manager is out of scope and will be
> designed
> > > within the next task.
> > > * Interfaces implementations are out of scope. I did not intend to
> merge
> > > them right now, but for test/demostration purposes.
> > >
> > > It is NOT the final version and some may be changed before the first
> > > release of course.
> > > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed with this approach or some
> > > issues should be resolved at first.
> > >
> > > Any thoughts or objections?
> > > Are interfaces good enough to be merged within the current ticket?
> > >
> > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
> > > > 2. It requires adding new types to the internal representation,
> > protocol,
> > > > e.t.c.
> > > > 3. internal representation should be the same as we keep sign types.
> So
> > > it
> > > > will not requires more memory
> > > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such types for platforms which
> not
> > > > support unsigned types. For example, a user could derive -6 value in
> > Java
> > > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits perspective will be right). I
> > > think
> > > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such cases, especially it will be
> > bad
> > > > for unsigned long when we require returns BigInteger type.
> > > > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix for new types like a
> > '250u' -
> > > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
> > > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive comparison logic for
> indexes
> > > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for expressions. I think it not
> > > > possible for the current H2 engine and probably possible for the new
> > > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from anybody who involved in this
> > part
> > > >
> > > > WDYT?
> > > >
> > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >:
> > > >
> > > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0: once we the actual
> type
> > > > > information, we can make proper runtime adjustments and conversions
> > to
> > > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will be just a bit more
> > expensive.
> > > > >
> > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]
> >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
> > > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons and so on are broken
> > > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned this somewhere
> above.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document that SQL is not supported
> on
> > > > those
> > > > > > types,
> > > > > > end of story.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable request. I thought about
> this
> > > > when
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add these types right
> > away.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with .NET
> > and
> > > > C++
> > > > > :)
> > > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually works as expected, it needs
> > > some
> > > > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns are false):
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >    - It's true that equality check works properly, but for SQL
> > > range
> > > > > > >    queries it will break unless some special care is taken on
> > Java
> > > > > side:
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will be converted to -1,
> > > which
> > > > > will
> > > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we don't have unsigned types
> now,
> > I
> > > > > doubt
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > >    works.
> > > > > > >    - There is an obvious cross-platform data loss when
> > "intuitive"
> > > > type
> > > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8 corresponds to byte type in
> > .NET,
> > > > but
> > > > > to
> > > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have to use short type in
> Java,
> > > and
> > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >    will also need to take care of the range check during
> > > > > serialization).
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > >    think we can even allow to try to deserialize a value into
> > > > arbitrary
> > > > > > > type,
> > > > > > >    but throw an exception if the range is out of bounds.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
> > > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once all the details are
> > > settled
> > > > > > here?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't be treated correctly
> > for
> > > > now
> > > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think we could make "true" support for unsigned types, but
> > they
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
> > > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map uint64 to Java long
> > > > primitive,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > BigInteger only.
> > > > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64 to Java long, but treat
> > > > negative
> > > > > > > > values in a different way to preserve correct ordering.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > These limitations will affect only mixed environments when
> .Net
> > > and
> > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > used to access the data.
> > > > > > > > Will this solution address your issues?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with
> .NET
> > > and
> > > > > C++
> > > > > > :)
> > > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as cache keys and values,
> as
> > > > fields
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > properties,
> > > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y clauses) - it works
> > > > > > transparently
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > the users.
> > > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats those values as
> > > corresponding
> > > > > > signed
> > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in some cases only because
> > > there
> > > > > are
> > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> > > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very simple change to the
> > protocol
> > > -
> > > > > add
> > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as signed counterparts.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise representation is
> > the
> > > > > same)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a uByte field and map
> it
> > > to
> > > > > > > 'uint8'
> > > > > > > > > > column.
> > > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to "250" and put the object
> > > into a
> > > > > > > table,
> > > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a single byte 'int8'
> column.
> > > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it to directly the Java
> > > > object
> > > > > > > field
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8 type to Java 'short'
> > type
> > > > > > > > > > because the one expected to see "250" as a value which
> > > doesn't
> > > > > fit
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > signed type.
> > > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a BigInteger field in Java.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat column value as Java 'byte'
> as
> > > is,
> > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a negative value, so it should
> > be
> > > > cast
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > short
> > > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger for uint64)
> > > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will require a different
> > comparator.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a good idea.
> > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the simple approach I
> > > described?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing range for unsigned types
> > > then
> > > > we
> > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > > add a
> > > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on schema level (like
> > > > > nullability
> > > > > > > > flag)
> > > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types in storage.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate storage type-system and
> > > binary
> > > > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of type will match 1 to 1
> > with
> > > > > > storage
> > > > > > > > > > (native)
> > > > > > > > > > > > type.
> > > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either have a separate type id
> or
> > > > treat
> > > > > > > > > > serialized
> > > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed or unsigned flag).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever foresee the consequences
> of
> > > > using
> > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned types perfectly works
> > > with
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > database,
> > > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite successor confession with
> our
> > > > > > "native"
> > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> > > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he can use the power of
> Ignite
> > > > > Compute
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either fail to use his
> unsigned
> > > data
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > > due
> > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due to natural Java type
> system
> > > > > > > limitations
> > > > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively supported types with possible
> > > value
> > > > > > > ranges
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
> > > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is what trade-off we found
> > > > acceptable:
> > > > > > > > > narrowing
> > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use types of wider range on
> > > systems
> > > > > like
> > > > > > > > Java.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor Sapego <
> > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so hard to implement
> > > > comparison
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not seem to be a big
> > issue
> > > > > from
> > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned types from Java - I
> > think,
> > > > if
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to interact with it from
> > Java
> > > he
> > > > > > knows
> > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from platforms where they
> > have
> > > > > native
> > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > widely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where users currently
> have
> > > to
> > > > > > make a
> > > > > > > > > > manual
> > > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > > > casting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using unsigned types when they
> use
> > > > > Ignite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for those types
> (basically,
> > > just
> > > > > add
> > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise
> > representation
> > > > is
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > same)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned integers, so we
> can
> > > > > simply
> > > > > > > say
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative comparison is not
> supported
> > > in
> > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > (equality
> > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM Andrey Mashenkov
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have i8 or int8 instead of
> > > > > Integer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't address the issue.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types should be portable
> across
> > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > systems
> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type support.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is that unsigned types
> cover
> > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > ranges.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to introduce a uLong.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big deal to add uLong
> type
> > > > > support
> > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > storage
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and then use it in e.g.
> > > .Net
> > > > > > only.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support it in e.g. Java?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range is about (2^-63
> ..
> > > > 2^63)
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > range
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to restrict range to (0
> ..
> > > > > 2^63).
> > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but doesn't look like
> a
> > > > 'real'
> > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse when the user will use
> > > > uByte,
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > limitation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map unsigned types to a
> > > type
> > > > of
> > > > > > > wider
> > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative values. E.g. uLong to
> > > > > > BigInteger.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive Java type for Long
> > here.
> > > > > > > However,
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8 bytes, but have a
> > > > special
> > > > > > > > > comparator
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid unwanted
> deserialization.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Pavel Tupitsyn
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of "long, short, byte"
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style, which is concise and
> > > > > > unambiguous:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM Igor Sapego <
> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support that. Also, if we are
> > aiming
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger platform-independance,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may want to support
> > > > bit-notation
> > > > > > > > (int32,
> > > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a different type on
> different
> > > > > > platforms
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often when using ODBC for
> > > example).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM Pavel
> > Tupitsyn
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should support unsigned data
> > > types:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have them, but many other
> > > > languages
> > > > > > do,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing number of thin
> clients
> > > > this
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in current Ignite.NET
> > > > implementation
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain when it comes to
> > > > > metadata,
> > > > > > > > binary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to deserialize int as uint
> when
> > > you
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > class,
> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM Andrey
> > > > > Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both serializers use
> > reflection
> > > > > API.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will allow users to
> configure
> > > > > static
> > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > along
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still need to validate
> > user
> > > > > > classes
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > client
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in the grid  and
> > > reflection
> > > > > API
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few articles on the
> > internet
> > > > on
> > > > > > how
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task for supporting
> > GraalVM,
> > > > and
> > > > > > > maybe
> > > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM will suggest a
> > > solution
> > > > > or
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is found, we could
> allow
> > > > users
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I don't think it is a
> > good
> > > > idea
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > expose
> > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the public.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM Denis
> > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the update,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the serializers take into
> > > > > > > consideration
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native-image-generation feature of
> > > GraalVM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current binary marshaller,
> we
> > > > can't
> > > > > > even
> > > > > > > > > > > generate
> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using our thin client
> > APIs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM
> Andrey
> > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to continue discussion of
> > > IEP-54
> > > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who is interested
> had a
> > > > > chance
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to ask
> > > questions
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > share
> > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a prototype of
> > serializer
> > > > [2]
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I compared 2 approaches
> > to
> > > > > > > > > (de)serialize
> > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java reflection/unsafe API and
> > > > similar
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second one generates
> > serializer
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library for compilation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows better results in
> > > > > > benchmarks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go with it as
> default
> > > > > > serializer
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation as a fallback if
> > someone
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of tasks under
> the
> > > > > > umbrella
> > > > > > > > > ticket
> > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to create more
> tickets
> > > for
> > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > manager
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation, but would like to
> > > clarify
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > details.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought schemaManager on each
> node
> > > > should
> > > > > > > held:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping of "schema
> > version"
> > > > <-->
> > > > > > > > > validated
> > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide schema changes
> > > history.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client side. Before any
> > > key-value
> > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > operation
> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a given key-value pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no local-mapping exists
> > > for a
> > > > > > given
> > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema has a more
> recent
> > > > > version
> > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be validated against the
> > latest
> > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object doesn't fit to the
> > latest
> > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > depends
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail the operation
> > > ('strict'
> > > > > > mode)
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a new schema version
> > should
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > > propagated
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server side we usually have
> no
> > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > classes
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change history is
> available
> > > > and a
> > > > > > > tuple
> > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to upgrade any
> > received
> > > > > tuple
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > last
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow nodes to send
> > > > key-value
> > > > > > > pairs
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't receive a schema update
> > > yet)
> > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > reverting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node with newer classes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the
> > same?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM
> Ivan
> > > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not ignore history. We
> > had
> > > a
> > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can resume it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00, Denis
> > > Magda
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks for
> > > > > explaining.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we need to have a
> > > separate
> > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms substitution.
> I'll
> > > > > > appreciate
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing pointers to any
> relevant
> > > IEPs
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > reasoning
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM
> > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the wording in the IEP
> > is
> > > a
> > > > > > little
> > > > > > > > bit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you should not create
> > nested
> > > > > POJOs,
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO that is mapped to
> a
> > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this correct? Please
> > let
> > > me
> > > > > > know
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the "cache" term, I
> agree
> > > > that
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can replace it with.
> > > "Table"
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > tightly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional in our case.
> Do
> > > you
> > > > > want
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > create a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM
> > > Denis
> > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked the IEP again
> and
> > > > have a
> > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > > questions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects and
> > > > > > collections
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should either
> be
> > > > > inlined
> > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > schema,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL code
> > > > snippet
> > > > > > > > showing
> > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to work?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep using the terms
> > > > "cache"
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right time to discuss an
> > > > > alternate
> > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the "table"
> should
> > > stay
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one of the
> primary
> > > APIs
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26
> PM
> > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your point. I agree
> > that
> > > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > automatic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last territory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we support
> > > automatic
> > > > > > > > > evolution,
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a cache without
> > schema
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > inferring
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other words, we can have
> both
> > > > > > > > > "schema-first"
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59
> > AM
> > > > > Alexey
> > > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > [hidden email]
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got your
> > concern
> > > > > now.
> > > > > > As
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > terminology, I am
> > absolutely
> > > > fine
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the approach best.
> Dynamic
> > or
> > > > > > > evolving
> > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > corresponding changes to
> > the
> > > > IEP
> > > > > > once
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > settle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в
> > 11:33,
> > > > Ivan
> > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for your
> > answer!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My understanding is a
> > > little
> > > > > bit
> > > > > > > > > > different.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > definitely should be
> > > > possible.
> > > > > > But
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is updated". I
> > > treat a
> > > > > > > common
> > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data manipulation
> > > > > operations
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > clearly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > interesting
> capabilities,
> > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > preventing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data
> operations,
> > > > > > > restricting
> > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first means
> that
> > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > exists
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is compliant with it -
> > > that's
> > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last approach
> > > > > mentioned
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is
> > inferred
> > > > from
> > > > > > > data.
> > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing approach?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would like to
> say,
> > > that
> > > > > my
> > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > terminology. And I
> > suppose
> > > if
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > confuses
> > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused as well. My
> > > feeling
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > closer
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47
> > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an issue
> > with
> > > > > that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance and all the
> > > stored
> > > > > data
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > compliant
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is proposed. There
> are
> > no
> > > > > > > > > restrictions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020
> at
> > > 9:52
> > > > > PM
> > > > > > > Ivan
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit
> > > confused
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > My
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see
> > > part
> > > > X
> > > > > > Semi
> > > > > > > > > > > > Structured
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema"
> > > > approach
> > > > > > as a
> > > > > > > > > kind
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53
> > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could
> you
> > > > please
> > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use
> case
> > > for
> > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If
> so,
> > > > what
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
> > > > > understanding,
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing
> > > something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes,
> if
> > > all
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > ORM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > internally, then
> > they
> > > > can
> > > > > > > easily
> > > > > > > > > > > > translate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE
> > > statement
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > lists
> > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data
> > > integration
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be improved
> once
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of
> > > usability
> > > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would revise the
> > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say
> if
> > > it's
> > > > > > used
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind,
> > I'll
> > > > > loop
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > long
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support for
> > > > > Micornaut
> > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came across some
> > > > > challenges.
> > > > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > > > > > watch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite
> > 3.0.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31,
> 2020
> > > at
> > > > > 5:11
> > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally
> > speaking, I
> > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the
> issue
> > > if
> > > > > > > > duplicate
> > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be
> > > created
> > > > > for
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > cache,
> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the
> > schema
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > > define
> > > > > > > > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which fields
> > are
> > > > > > included
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be
> > > compliant
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > this,
> > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a
> set
> > of
> > > > > > > records,
> > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could
> you
> > > > please
> > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use
> case
> > > for
> > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If
> so,
> > > > what
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
> > > > > understanding,
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing
> > > something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31,
> > 2020
> > > at
> > > > > > 2:08
> > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would propose
> > > > adding
> > > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > > > point
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to the
> > ORM
> > > > > > > frameworks
> > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the
> > > > storage
> > > > > > > engine
> > > > > > > > > > > > requires
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones that
> > > > > > complicate
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially if
> a
> > > key
> > > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > > comprises
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice
> > if
> > > > the
> > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single entity
> > > object
> > > > > when
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > comes
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a
> key
> > > and
> > > > > > > value.
> > > > > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the
> essential
> > > > > public
> > > > > > > APIs
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > single-entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you
> > think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28,
> > > 2020
> > > > at
> > > > > > > 3:50
> > > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the
> big
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > proposed
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first
> > > > > > approach".
> > > > > > > To
> > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this
> > change:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a
> > > look
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > let
> > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions,
> or
> > > > > > > objections.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>

[Michael Cherkasov]

Hi Val, Andrey,

thank you for clarifying.

I still have a few comments.

1. one table == one schema. KV vs SQL:
Looks like all agreed that KV is just a special case of a regular table
with (blob,blob) schema.
I worry about the case when the user starts from KV case and later will try
to expand it and try to leverage SQL for the existing KV table it won't be
able to do so and will require to reload data. which isn't convenient and
sometimes not even possible. Is it possible to extract a new field from
(blob, blob) schema and apply index on it?

2. Could you please also list all ways of schema definition in the IEP? It
significant change and I bet the main point of this IEP, everyone hates
QueryEntities, they are difficult to manage and in general, it's very
confusing to have a data model(schemas) and node/cluster configuration in
one place.

So there will be SchemaBuilder and SQL to define schemas, but Andrey also
mentioned annotations.

I personally against configuration via annotations, while it's convenient
for development, it difficult to manage because different classes can be
deployed on different clients/servers nodes and it can lead to
unpredictable results.

3. IEP doesn't mention field type changes, only drop/add fields. Field type
changes are extremely painful right now(if even possible), so it would be
nice if some scenarios would be supported(like int8->int16, or
int8->String).

4. got it, I thought IEP will have more details about the implementation.
I've seen Andrey even sent benchmark results for a new serialization, will
ping him about this.

5. Thanks for the clarification. I had a wrong understanding of strick mode.


вт, 29 дек. 2020 г. в 19:32, Valentin Kulichenko <
[hidden email]>:

> Hi Mike,
>
> Thanks for providing your feedback. Please see my comments below.
>
> I would also encourage you to go through the IEP-54 [1] - it has a lot of
> detail on the topic.
>
> [1]
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
>
> -Val
>
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:22 PM Michael Cherkasov <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I reviewed the mail thread and proposal page and I still don't fully
> > understand what is going to be changed, I would really appreciate it if
> you
> > will answer a few questions:
> >
> > 1. Are you going to leave only one schema per cache? if so, will be there
> > an option to have a table with arbitrary objects(pure KV case)?
> >
>
> My opinion is that KV case should be natively supported. I think this still
> needs to be thought over, my current view on this is that we should have
> separate APIs for KV and more generic storages. KV storage can be
> implemented as a "table" with two BLOB fields where we will store
> serialized key-value pairs. That would imply deserialization on read, but I
> believe this is OK for KV use cases. I'm happy to hear other ideas though
> :)
>
>
> > 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0 have to define schema?
> SchemaBuilder
> > and SQL only? Is there an option to put the schema definition to the
> > configuration?(I really don't like this, I would prefer to have
> > separate scripts to create schemas)
> >
>
> There will be no such thing as a static configuration in the first place.
> Tables and schemas are created in runtime. Even if there is a file provided
> on node startup, this file is only applied in the scope of the 'start'
> operation. All configurations will be stored in a meta storage available to
> all nodes, as opposed to individual files.
>
>
> > 3. Is there a way to change field type? if yes, can it be done in
> runtime?
> >
>
> Absolutely! IEP-54 has a whole section about schema evolution.
>
>
> > 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going to be re-worked too, is there any
> > IEP for this?
> >
>
> BinaryMarshaller as a tool for arbitrary object serialization will be gone,
> but we will reuse a lot of its concept to implement an internal tuple
> serialization mechanism. IEP-54 has the description of the proposed data
> format.
>
>
> > 5. I don't like automatic schema evaluation when a new field is added
> > automatically on record put, so is there a way to prohibit this behavior?
> >  I think all schema changes should be done only explicitly except initial
> > schema creation.
> >
>
> The way I see it is that we should have two modes: schema-first and
> schema-last. Schema-first means exactly what you've described - schemas are
> defined and updated explicitly by the user. In the schema-last mode,
> the user does not deal with schemas, as they are inferred from the data
> inserted into tables. We should definitely not mix these modes - it has to
> be one or another. And it probably makes sense to discuss which mode should
> be the default one.
>
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mike.
> >
> > пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey Mashenkov <
> [hidden email]
> > >:
> >
> > > Hi, Igniters.
> > >
> > > We all know that the current QueryEntity API is not convenient and
> needs
> > to
> > > be reworked.
> > > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema configuration public API for
> > > Ignite 3.0.
> > >
> > > New schema configuration uses Builder pattern, which looks more
> > comfortable
> > > to use.
> > >
> > > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package with the API itself, and a
> > draft
> > > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
> > > and a test that demonstrates how the API could be used.
> > >
> > > Please note:
> > >
> > > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with static factory methods.
> > > * The implementation is decoupled and can be easily extracted to
> separate
> > > module if we decide to do so.
> > > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are missed, they will be added
> > lately
> > > in separate tickes.
> > > * Index configuration extends marker interface that makes possible to
> > > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
> > > Hopfully, we could add a persistent geo-indices support in future.
> > > * Supposedly, current table schema can be changed via builder-like
> > > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See 'TableModificationBuilder'
> > for
> > > details.
> > > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have 'toBuilder()' converter for that
> > > purpose as it is a Schema Manager responsibility to create mutator
> > objects
> > > from the current schema,
> > > but implementing the Schema manager is out of scope and will be
> designed
> > > within the next task.
> > > * Interfaces implementations are out of scope. I did not intend to
> merge
> > > them right now, but for test/demostration purposes.
> > >
> > > It is NOT the final version and some may be changed before the first
> > > release of course.
> > > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed with this approach or some
> > > issues should be resolved at first.
> > >
> > > Any thoughts or objections?
> > > Are interfaces good enough to be merged within the current ticket?
> > >
> > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
> > > > 2. It requires adding new types to the internal representation,
> > protocol,
> > > > e.t.c.
> > > > 3. internal representation should be the same as we keep sign types.
> So
> > > it
> > > > will not requires more memory
> > > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such types for platforms which
> not
> > > > support unsigned types. For example, a user could derive -6 value in
> > Java
> > > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits perspective will be right). I
> > > think
> > > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such cases, especially it will be
> > bad
> > > > for unsigned long when we require returns BigInteger type.
> > > > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix for new types like a
> > '250u' -
> > > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
> > > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive comparison logic for
> indexes
> > > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for expressions. I think it not
> > > > possible for the current H2 engine and probably possible for the new
> > > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from anybody who involved in this
> > part
> > > >
> > > > WDYT?
> > > >
> > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >:
> > > >
> > > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0: once we the actual
> type
> > > > > information, we can make proper runtime adjustments and conversions
> > to
> > > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will be just a bit more
> > expensive.
> > > > >
> > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]
> >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
> > > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons and so on are broken
> > > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned this somewhere
> above.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document that SQL is not supported
> on
> > > > those
> > > > > > types,
> > > > > > end of story.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable request. I thought about
> this
> > > > when
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add these types right
> > away.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with .NET
> > and
> > > > C++
> > > > > :)
> > > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually works as expected, it needs
> > > some
> > > > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns are false):
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >    - It's true that equality check works properly, but for SQL
> > > range
> > > > > > >    queries it will break unless some special care is taken on
> > Java
> > > > > side:
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will be converted to -1,
> > > which
> > > > > will
> > > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we don't have unsigned types
> now,
> > I
> > > > > doubt
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > >    works.
> > > > > > >    - There is an obvious cross-platform data loss when
> > "intuitive"
> > > > type
> > > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8 corresponds to byte type in
> > .NET,
> > > > but
> > > > > to
> > > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have to use short type in
> Java,
> > > and
> > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >    will also need to take care of the range check during
> > > > > serialization).
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > >    think we can even allow to try to deserialize a value into
> > > > arbitrary
> > > > > > > type,
> > > > > > >    but throw an exception if the range is out of bounds.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
> > > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once all the details are
> > > settled
> > > > > > here?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't be treated correctly
> > for
> > > > now
> > > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think we could make "true" support for unsigned types, but
> > they
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
> > > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map uint64 to Java long
> > > > primitive,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > BigInteger only.
> > > > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64 to Java long, but treat
> > > > negative
> > > > > > > > values in a different way to preserve correct ordering.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > These limitations will affect only mixed environments when
> .Net
> > > and
> > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > used to access the data.
> > > > > > > > Will this solution address your issues?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with
> .NET
> > > and
> > > > > C++
> > > > > > :)
> > > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as cache keys and values,
> as
> > > > fields
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > properties,
> > > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y clauses) - it works
> > > > > > transparently
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > the users.
> > > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats those values as
> > > corresponding
> > > > > > signed
> > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in some cases only because
> > > there
> > > > > are
> > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> > > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very simple change to the
> > protocol
> > > -
> > > > > add
> > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as signed counterparts.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise representation is
> > the
> > > > > same)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a uByte field and map
> it
> > > to
> > > > > > > 'uint8'
> > > > > > > > > > column.
> > > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to "250" and put the object
> > > into a
> > > > > > > table,
> > > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a single byte 'int8'
> column.
> > > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it to directly the Java
> > > > object
> > > > > > > field
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8 type to Java 'short'
> > type
> > > > > > > > > > because the one expected to see "250" as a value which
> > > doesn't
> > > > > fit
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > signed type.
> > > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a BigInteger field in Java.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat column value as Java 'byte'
> as
> > > is,
> > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a negative value, so it should
> > be
> > > > cast
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > short
> > > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger for uint64)
> > > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will require a different
> > comparator.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a good idea.
> > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the simple approach I
> > > described?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing range for unsigned types
> > > then
> > > > we
> > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > > add a
> > > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on schema level (like
> > > > > nullability
> > > > > > > > flag)
> > > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types in storage.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate storage type-system and
> > > binary
> > > > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of type will match 1 to 1
> > with
> > > > > > storage
> > > > > > > > > > (native)
> > > > > > > > > > > > type.
> > > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either have a separate type id
> or
> > > > treat
> > > > > > > > > > serialized
> > > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed or unsigned flag).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever foresee the consequences
> of
> > > > using
> > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned types perfectly works
> > > with
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > database,
> > > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite successor confession with
> our
> > > > > > "native"
> > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> > > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he can use the power of
> Ignite
> > > > > Compute
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either fail to use his
> unsigned
> > > data
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > > due
> > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due to natural Java type
> system
> > > > > > > limitations
> > > > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively supported types with possible
> > > value
> > > > > > > ranges
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
> > > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is what trade-off we found
> > > > acceptable:
> > > > > > > > > narrowing
> > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use types of wider range on
> > > systems
> > > > > like
> > > > > > > > Java.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor Sapego <
> > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so hard to implement
> > > > comparison
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not seem to be a big
> > issue
> > > > > from
> > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned types from Java - I
> > think,
> > > > if
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to interact with it from
> > Java
> > > he
> > > > > > knows
> > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from platforms where they
> > have
> > > > > native
> > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > widely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where users currently
> have
> > > to
> > > > > > make a
> > > > > > > > > > manual
> > > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > > > casting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using unsigned types when they
> use
> > > > > Ignite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for those types
> (basically,
> > > just
> > > > > add
> > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise
> > representation
> > > > is
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > same)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned integers, so we
> can
> > > > > simply
> > > > > > > say
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative comparison is not
> supported
> > > in
> > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > (equality
> > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM Andrey Mashenkov
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have i8 or int8 instead of
> > > > > Integer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't address the issue.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types should be portable
> across
> > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > systems
> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type support.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is that unsigned types
> cover
> > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > ranges.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to introduce a uLong.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big deal to add uLong
> type
> > > > > support
> > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > storage
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and then use it in e.g.
> > > .Net
> > > > > > only.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support it in e.g. Java?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range is about (2^-63
> ..
> > > > 2^63)
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > range
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to restrict range to (0
> ..
> > > > > 2^63).
> > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but doesn't look like
> a
> > > > 'real'
> > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse when the user will use
> > > > uByte,
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > limitation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map unsigned types to a
> > > type
> > > > of
> > > > > > > wider
> > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative values. E.g. uLong to
> > > > > > BigInteger.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive Java type for Long
> > here.
> > > > > > > However,
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8 bytes, but have a
> > > > special
> > > > > > > > > comparator
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid unwanted
> deserialization.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Pavel Tupitsyn
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of "long, short, byte"
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style, which is concise and
> > > > > > unambiguous:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM Igor Sapego <
> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support that. Also, if we are
> > aiming
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger platform-independance,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may want to support
> > > > bit-notation
> > > > > > > > (int32,
> > > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a different type on
> different
> > > > > > platforms
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often when using ODBC for
> > > example).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM Pavel
> > Tupitsyn
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should support unsigned data
> > > types:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have them, but many other
> > > > languages
> > > > > > do,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing number of thin
> clients
> > > > this
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in current Ignite.NET
> > > > implementation
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain when it comes to
> > > > > metadata,
> > > > > > > > binary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to deserialize int as uint
> when
> > > you
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > class,
> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM Andrey
> > > > > Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both serializers use
> > reflection
> > > > > API.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will allow users to
> configure
> > > > > static
> > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > along
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still need to validate
> > user
> > > > > > classes
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > client
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in the grid  and
> > > reflection
> > > > > API
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few articles on the
> > internet
> > > > on
> > > > > > how
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task for supporting
> > GraalVM,
> > > > and
> > > > > > > maybe
> > > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM will suggest a
> > > solution
> > > > > or
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is found, we could
> allow
> > > > users
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I don't think it is a
> > good
> > > > idea
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > expose
> > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the public.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM Denis
> > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the update,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the serializers take into
> > > > > > > consideration
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native-image-generation feature of
> > > GraalVM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current binary marshaller,
> we
> > > > can't
> > > > > > even
> > > > > > > > > > > generate
> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using our thin client
> > APIs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM
> Andrey
> > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to continue discussion of
> > > IEP-54
> > > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who is interested
> had a
> > > > > chance
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to ask
> > > questions
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > share
> > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a prototype of
> > serializer
> > > > [2]
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I compared 2 approaches
> > to
> > > > > > > > > (de)serialize
> > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java reflection/unsafe API and
> > > > similar
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second one generates
> > serializer
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library for compilation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows better results in
> > > > > > benchmarks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go with it as
> default
> > > > > > serializer
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation as a fallback if
> > someone
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of tasks under
> the
> > > > > > umbrella
> > > > > > > > > ticket
> > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to create more
> tickets
> > > for
> > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > manager
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation, but would like to
> > > clarify
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > details.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought schemaManager on each
> node
> > > > should
> > > > > > > held:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping of "schema
> > version"
> > > > <-->
> > > > > > > > > validated
> > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide schema changes
> > > history.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client side. Before any
> > > key-value
> > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > operation
> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a given key-value pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no local-mapping exists
> > > for a
> > > > > > given
> > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema has a more
> recent
> > > > > version
> > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be validated against the
> > latest
> > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object doesn't fit to the
> > latest
> > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > depends
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail the operation
> > > ('strict'
> > > > > > mode)
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a new schema version
> > should
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > > propagated
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server side we usually have
> no
> > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > classes
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change history is
> available
> > > > and a
> > > > > > > tuple
> > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to upgrade any
> > received
> > > > > tuple
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > last
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow nodes to send
> > > > key-value
> > > > > > > pairs
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't receive a schema update
> > > yet)
> > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > reverting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node with newer classes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the
> > same?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM
> Ivan
> > > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not ignore history. We
> > had
> > > a
> > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can resume it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00, Denis
> > > Magda
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks for
> > > > > explaining.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we need to have a
> > > separate
> > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms substitution.
> I'll
> > > > > > appreciate
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing pointers to any
> relevant
> > > IEPs
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > reasoning
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM
> > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the wording in the IEP
> > is
> > > a
> > > > > > little
> > > > > > > > bit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you should not create
> > nested
> > > > > POJOs,
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO that is mapped to
> a
> > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this correct? Please
> > let
> > > me
> > > > > > know
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the "cache" term, I
> agree
> > > > that
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can replace it with.
> > > "Table"
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > tightly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional in our case.
> Do
> > > you
> > > > > want
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > create a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM
> > > Denis
> > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked the IEP again
> and
> > > > have a
> > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > > questions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects and
> > > > > > collections
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should either
> be
> > > > > inlined
> > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > schema,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL code
> > > > snippet
> > > > > > > > showing
> > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to work?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep using the terms
> > > > "cache"
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right time to discuss an
> > > > > alternate
> > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the "table"
> should
> > > stay
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one of the
> primary
> > > APIs
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26
> PM
> > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your point. I agree
> > that
> > > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > automatic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last territory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we support
> > > automatic
> > > > > > > > > evolution,
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a cache without
> > schema
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > inferring
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other words, we can have
> both
> > > > > > > > > "schema-first"
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59
> > AM
> > > > > Alexey
> > > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > [hidden email]
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got your
> > concern
> > > > > now.
> > > > > > As
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > terminology, I am
> > absolutely
> > > > fine
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the approach best.
> Dynamic
> > or
> > > > > > > evolving
> > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > corresponding changes to
> > the
> > > > IEP
> > > > > > once
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > settle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в
> > 11:33,
> > > > Ivan
> > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for your
> > answer!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My understanding is a
> > > little
> > > > > bit
> > > > > > > > > > different.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > definitely should be
> > > > possible.
> > > > > > But
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is updated". I
> > > treat a
> > > > > > > common
> > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data manipulation
> > > > > operations
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > clearly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > interesting
> capabilities,
> > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > preventing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data
> operations,
> > > > > > > restricting
> > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first means
> that
> > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > exists
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is compliant with it -
> > > that's
> > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last approach
> > > > > mentioned
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is
> > inferred
> > > > from
> > > > > > > data.
> > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing approach?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would like to
> say,
> > > that
> > > > > my
> > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > terminology. And I
> > suppose
> > > if
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > confuses
> > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused as well. My
> > > feeling
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > closer
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47
> > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an issue
> > with
> > > > > that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance and all the
> > > stored
> > > > > data
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > compliant
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is proposed. There
> are
> > no
> > > > > > > > > restrictions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020
> at
> > > 9:52
> > > > > PM
> > > > > > > Ivan
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit
> > > confused
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > My
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see
> > > part
> > > > X
> > > > > > Semi
> > > > > > > > > > > > Structured
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema"
> > > > approach
> > > > > > as a
> > > > > > > > > kind
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53
> > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could
> you
> > > > please
> > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use
> case
> > > for
> > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If
> so,
> > > > what
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
> > > > > understanding,
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing
> > > something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes,
> if
> > > all
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > ORM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > internally, then
> > they
> > > > can
> > > > > > > easily
> > > > > > > > > > > > translate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE
> > > statement
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > lists
> > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data
> > > integration
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be improved
> once
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of
> > > usability
> > > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would revise the
> > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say
> if
> > > it's
> > > > > > used
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind,
> > I'll
> > > > > loop
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > long
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support for
> > > > > Micornaut
> > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came across some
> > > > > challenges.
> > > > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > > > > > watch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite
> > 3.0.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31,
> 2020
> > > at
> > > > > 5:11
> > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally
> > speaking, I
> > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the
> issue
> > > if
> > > > > > > > duplicate
> > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be
> > > created
> > > > > for
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > cache,
> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the
> > schema
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > > define
> > > > > > > > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which fields
> > are
> > > > > > included
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be
> > > compliant
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > > this,
> > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a
> set
> > of
> > > > > > > records,
> > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could
> you
> > > > please
> > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use
> case
> > > for
> > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If
> so,
> > > > what
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
> > > > > understanding,
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing
> > > something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31,
> > 2020
> > > at
> > > > > > 2:08
> > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would propose
> > > > adding
> > > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > > > point
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to the
> > ORM
> > > > > > > frameworks
> > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the
> > > > storage
> > > > > > > engine
> > > > > > > > > > > > requires
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones that
> > > > > > complicate
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially if
> a
> > > key
> > > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > > comprises
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice
> > if
> > > > the
> > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single entity
> > > object
> > > > > when
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > comes
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a
> key
> > > and
> > > > > > > value.
> > > > > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the
> essential
> > > > > public
> > > > > > > APIs
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > single-entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you
> > think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28,
> > > 2020
> > > > at
> > > > > > > 3:50
> > > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the
> big
> > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > proposed
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first
> > > > > > approach".
> > > > > > > To
> > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this
> > change:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a
> > > look
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > let
> > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions,
> or
> > > > > > > objections.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >
> >
>

[Alexey Goncharuk]

Mikhail and Igniters,

Thanks for your comments. The questions are reasonable, though I think all
concerns are addressed by the IEP as Val mentioned. I will update the
document according to your questions in the following week or so, so we can
have a constructive discussion further.

ср, 30 дек. 2020 г. в 11:45, Michael Cherkasov <[hidden email]
>:

> Hi Val, Andrey,
>
> thank you for clarifying.
>
> I still have a few comments.
>
> 1. one table == one schema. KV vs SQL:
> Looks like all agreed that KV is just a special case of a regular table
> with (blob,blob) schema.
> I worry about the case when the user starts from KV case and later will try
> to expand it and try to leverage SQL for the existing KV table it won't be
> able to do so and will require to reload data. which isn't convenient and
> sometimes not even possible. Is it possible to extract a new field from
> (blob, blob) schema and apply index on it?
>
> 2. Could you please also list all ways of schema definition in the IEP? It
> significant change and I bet the main point of this IEP, everyone hates
> QueryEntities, they are difficult to manage and in general, it's very
> confusing to have a data model(schemas) and node/cluster configuration in
> one place.
>
> So there will be SchemaBuilder and SQL to define schemas, but Andrey also
> mentioned annotations.
>
> I personally against configuration via annotations, while it's convenient
> for development, it difficult to manage because different classes can be
> deployed on different clients/servers nodes and it can lead to
> unpredictable results.
>
> 3. IEP doesn't mention field type changes, only drop/add fields. Field type
> changes are extremely painful right now(if even possible), so it would be
> nice if some scenarios would be supported(like int8->int16, or
> int8->String).
>
> 4. got it, I thought IEP will have more details about the implementation.
> I've seen Andrey even sent benchmark results for a new serialization, will
> ping him about this.
>
> 5. Thanks for the clarification. I had a wrong understanding of strick
> mode.
>
>
> вт, 29 дек. 2020 г. в 19:32, Valentin Kulichenko <
> [hidden email]>:
>
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > Thanks for providing your feedback. Please see my comments below.
> >
> > I would also encourage you to go through the IEP-54 [1] - it has a lot of
> > detail on the topic.
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> >
> > -Val
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:22 PM Michael Cherkasov <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I reviewed the mail thread and proposal page and I still don't fully
> > > understand what is going to be changed, I would really appreciate it if
> > you
> > > will answer a few questions:
> > >
> > > 1. Are you going to leave only one schema per cache? if so, will be
> there
> > > an option to have a table with arbitrary objects(pure KV case)?
> > >
> >
> > My opinion is that KV case should be natively supported. I think this
> still
> > needs to be thought over, my current view on this is that we should have
> > separate APIs for KV and more generic storages. KV storage can be
> > implemented as a "table" with two BLOB fields where we will store
> > serialized key-value pairs. That would imply deserialization on read,
> but I
> > believe this is OK for KV use cases. I'm happy to hear other ideas though
> > :)
> >
> >
> > > 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0 have to define schema?
> > SchemaBuilder
> > > and SQL only? Is there an option to put the schema definition to the
> > > configuration?(I really don't like this, I would prefer to have
> > > separate scripts to create schemas)
> > >
> >
> > There will be no such thing as a static configuration in the first place.
> > Tables and schemas are created in runtime. Even if there is a file
> provided
> > on node startup, this file is only applied in the scope of the 'start'
> > operation. All configurations will be stored in a meta storage available
> to
> > all nodes, as opposed to individual files.
> >
> >
> > > 3. Is there a way to change field type? if yes, can it be done in
> > runtime?
> > >
> >
> > Absolutely! IEP-54 has a whole section about schema evolution.
> >
> >
> > > 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going to be re-worked too, is there
> any
> > > IEP for this?
> > >
> >
> > BinaryMarshaller as a tool for arbitrary object serialization will be
> gone,
> > but we will reuse a lot of its concept to implement an internal tuple
> > serialization mechanism. IEP-54 has the description of the proposed data
> > format.
> >
> >
> > > 5. I don't like automatic schema evaluation when a new field is added
> > > automatically on record put, so is there a way to prohibit this
> behavior?
> > >  I think all schema changes should be done only explicitly except
> initial
> > > schema creation.
> > >
> >
> > The way I see it is that we should have two modes: schema-first and
> > schema-last. Schema-first means exactly what you've described - schemas
> are
> > defined and updated explicitly by the user. In the schema-last mode,
> > the user does not deal with schemas, as they are inferred from the data
> > inserted into tables. We should definitely not mix these modes - it has
> to
> > be one or another. And it probably makes sense to discuss which mode
> should
> > be the default one.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Mike.
> > >
> > > пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >:
> > >
> > > > Hi, Igniters.
> > > >
> > > > We all know that the current QueryEntity API is not convenient and
> > needs
> > > to
> > > > be reworked.
> > > > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema configuration public API for
> > > > Ignite 3.0.
> > > >
> > > > New schema configuration uses Builder pattern, which looks more
> > > comfortable
> > > > to use.
> > > >
> > > > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package with the API itself, and a
> > > draft
> > > > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
> > > > and a test that demonstrates how the API could be used.
> > > >
> > > > Please note:
> > > >
> > > > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with static factory methods.
> > > > * The implementation is decoupled and can be easily extracted to
> > separate
> > > > module if we decide to do so.
> > > > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are missed, they will be added
> > > lately
> > > > in separate tickes.
> > > > * Index configuration extends marker interface that makes possible to
> > > > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
> > > > Hopfully, we could add a persistent geo-indices support in future.
> > > > * Supposedly, current table schema can be changed via builder-like
> > > > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See
> 'TableModificationBuilder'
> > > for
> > > > details.
> > > > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have 'toBuilder()' converter for
> that
> > > > purpose as it is a Schema Manager responsibility to create mutator
> > > objects
> > > > from the current schema,
> > > > but implementing the Schema manager is out of scope and will be
> > designed
> > > > within the next task.
> > > > * Interfaces implementations are out of scope. I did not intend to
> > merge
> > > > them right now, but for test/demostration purposes.
> > > >
> > > > It is NOT the final version and some may be changed before the first
> > > > release of course.
> > > > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed with this approach or
> some
> > > > issues should be resolved at first.
> > > >
> > > > Any thoughts or objections?
> > > > Are interfaces good enough to be merged within the current ticket?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
> > > > > 2. It requires adding new types to the internal representation,
> > > protocol,
> > > > > e.t.c.
> > > > > 3. internal representation should be the same as we keep sign
> types.
> > So
> > > > it
> > > > > will not requires more memory
> > > > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such types for platforms which
> > not
> > > > > support unsigned types. For example, a user could derive -6 value
> in
> > > Java
> > > > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits perspective will be right).
> I
> > > > think
> > > > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such cases, especially it will
> be
> > > bad
> > > > > for unsigned long when we require returns BigInteger type.
> > > > > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix for new types like a
> > > '250u' -
> > > > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
> > > > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive comparison logic for
> > indexes
> > > > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for expressions. I think it not
> > > > > possible for the current H2 engine and probably possible for the
> new
> > > > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from anybody who involved in
> this
> > > part
> > > > >
> > > > > WDYT?
> > > > >
> > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0: once we the actual
> > type
> > > > > > information, we can make proper runtime adjustments and
> conversions
> > > to
> > > > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will be just a bit more
> > > expensive.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> [hidden email]
> > >:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
> > > > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons and so on are broken
> > > > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned this somewhere
> > above.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document that SQL is not supported
> > on
> > > > > those
> > > > > > > types,
> > > > > > > end of story.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable request. I thought about
> > this
> > > > > when
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add these types right
> > > away.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with
> .NET
> > > and
> > > > > C++
> > > > > > :)
> > > > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually works as expected, it
> needs
> > > > some
> > > > > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns are false):
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >    - It's true that equality check works properly, but for
> SQL
> > > > range
> > > > > > > >    queries it will break unless some special care is taken on
> > > Java
> > > > > > side:
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will be converted to
> -1,
> > > > which
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we don't have unsigned types
> > now,
> > > I
> > > > > > doubt
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > >    works.
> > > > > > > >    - There is an obvious cross-platform data loss when
> > > "intuitive"
> > > > > type
> > > > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8 corresponds to byte type in
> > > .NET,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have to use short type in
> > Java,
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > >    will also need to take care of the range check during
> > > > > > serialization).
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > >    think we can even allow to try to deserialize a value into
> > > > > arbitrary
> > > > > > > > type,
> > > > > > > >    but throw an exception if the range is out of bounds.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
> > > > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once all the details are
> > > > settled
> > > > > > > here?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't be treated
> correctly
> > > for
> > > > > now
> > > > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think we could make "true" support for unsigned types,
> but
> > > they
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
> > > > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map uint64 to Java long
> > > > > primitive,
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > BigInteger only.
> > > > > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64 to Java long, but
> treat
> > > > > negative
> > > > > > > > > values in a different way to preserve correct ordering.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > These limitations will affect only mixed environments when
> > .Net
> > > > and
> > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > > used to access the data.
> > > > > > > > > Will this solution address your issues?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with
> > .NET
> > > > and
> > > > > > C++
> > > > > > > :)
> > > > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as cache keys and values,
> > as
> > > > > fields
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > properties,
> > > > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y clauses) - it works
> > > > > > > transparently
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > the users.
> > > > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats those values as
> > > > corresponding
> > > > > > > signed
> > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in some cases only
> because
> > > > there
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> > > > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very simple change to the
> > > protocol
> > > > -
> > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as signed counterparts.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise representation
> is
> > > the
> > > > > > same)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a uByte field and
> map
> > it
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > 'uint8'
> > > > > > > > > > > column.
> > > > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to "250" and put the
> object
> > > > into a
> > > > > > > > table,
> > > > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a single byte 'int8'
> > column.
> > > > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it to directly the
> Java
> > > > > object
> > > > > > > > field
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8 type to Java
> 'short'
> > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > because the one expected to see "250" as a value which
> > > > doesn't
> > > > > > fit
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > signed type.
> > > > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a BigInteger field in Java.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat column value as Java
> 'byte'
> > as
> > > > is,
> > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a negative value, so it
> should
> > > be
> > > > > cast
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > short
> > > > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger for uint64)
> > > > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will require a different
> > > comparator.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a good idea.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the simple approach I
> > > > described?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing range for unsigned
> types
> > > > then
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > > > add a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on schema level (like
> > > > > > nullability
> > > > > > > > > flag)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types in storage.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate storage type-system
> and
> > > > binary
> > > > > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of type will match 1 to 1
> > > with
> > > > > > > storage
> > > > > > > > > > > (native)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > type.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either have a separate type
> id
> > or
> > > > > treat
> > > > > > > > > > > serialized
> > > > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed or unsigned flag).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever foresee the
> consequences
> > of
> > > > > using
> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned types perfectly
> works
> > > > with
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > database,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite successor confession with
> > our
> > > > > > > "native"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he can use the power of
> > Ignite
> > > > > > Compute
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either fail to use his
> > unsigned
> > > > data
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > > > > > due
> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due to natural Java type
> > system
> > > > > > > > limitations
> > > > > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively supported types with
> possible
> > > > value
> > > > > > > > ranges
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is what trade-off we found
> > > > > acceptable:
> > > > > > > > > > narrowing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use types of wider range on
> > > > systems
> > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > Java.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor Sapego <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so hard to implement
> > > > > comparison
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not seem to be a big
> > > issue
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned types from Java - I
> > > think,
> > > > > if
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to interact with it from
> > > Java
> > > > he
> > > > > > > knows
> > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from platforms where they
> > > have
> > > > > > native
> > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > widely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where users currently
> > have
> > > > to
> > > > > > > make a
> > > > > > > > > > > manual
> > > > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > casting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using unsigned types when they
> > use
> > > > > > Ignite.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for those types
> > (basically,
> > > > just
> > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise
> > > representation
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > same)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned integers, so we
> > can
> > > > > > simply
> > > > > > > > say
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative comparison is not
> > supported
> > > > in
> > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > (equality
> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM Andrey
> Mashenkov
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have i8 or int8 instead
> of
> > > > > > Integer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't address the issue.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types should be portable
> > across
> > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > systems
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type support.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is that unsigned types
> > cover
> > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > ranges.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to introduce a uLong.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big deal to add uLong
> > type
> > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > storage
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and then use it in
> e.g.
> > > > .Net
> > > > > > > only.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support it in e.g. Java?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range is about (2^-63
> > ..
> > > > > 2^63)
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > range
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to restrict range to
> (0
> > ..
> > > > > > 2^63).
> > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but doesn't look
> like
> > a
> > > > > 'real'
> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse when the user will
> use
> > > > > uByte,
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > limitation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map unsigned types
> to a
> > > > type
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > wider
> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative values. E.g. uLong
> to
> > > > > > > BigInteger.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive Java type for Long
> > > here.
> > > > > > > > However,
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8 bytes, but have
> a
> > > > > special
> > > > > > > > > > comparator
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid unwanted
> > deserialization.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Pavel
> Tupitsyn
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of "long, short, byte"
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style, which is concise and
> > > > > > > unambiguous:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM Igor
> Sapego <
> > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support that. Also, if we are
> > > aiming
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger platform-independance,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may want to support
> > > > > bit-notation
> > > > > > > > > (int32,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a different type on
> > different
> > > > > > > platforms
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often when using ODBC for
> > > > example).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM Pavel
> > > Tupitsyn
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should support unsigned data
> > > > types:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have them, but many other
> > > > > languages
> > > > > > > do,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing number of thin
> > clients
> > > > > this
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in current Ignite.NET
> > > > > implementation
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain when it comes
> to
> > > > > > metadata,
> > > > > > > > > binary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to deserialize int as uint
> > when
> > > > you
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > class,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM Andrey
> > > > > > Mashenkov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both serializers use
> > > reflection
> > > > > > API.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will allow users to
> > configure
> > > > > > static
> > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > along
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still need to
> validate
> > > user
> > > > > > > classes
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > client
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in the grid  and
> > > > reflection
> > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few articles on the
> > > internet
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task for supporting
> > > GraalVM,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > maybe
> > > > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM will suggest a
> > > > solution
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is found, we could
> > allow
> > > > > users
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I don't think it is a
> > > good
> > > > > idea
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > expose
> > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the public.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM Denis
> > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the update,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the serializers take
> into
> > > > > > > > consideration
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native-image-generation feature of
> > > > GraalVM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current binary marshaller,
> > we
> > > > > can't
> > > > > > > even
> > > > > > > > > > > > generate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using our thin client
> > > APIs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM
> > Andrey
> > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to continue discussion
> of
> > > > IEP-54
> > > > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who is interested
> > had a
> > > > > > chance
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to ask
> > > > questions
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > share
> > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a prototype of
> > > serializer
> > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I compared 2
> approaches
> > > to
> > > > > > > > > > (de)serialize
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java reflection/unsafe API
> and
> > > > > similar
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second one generates
> > > serializer
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library for compilation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows better results
> in
> > > > > > > benchmarks.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go with it as
> > default
> > > > > > > serializer
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation as a fallback if
> > > someone
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of tasks under
> > the
> > > > > > > umbrella
> > > > > > > > > > ticket
> > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to create more
> > tickets
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > manager
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation, but would like to
> > > > clarify
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > details.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought schemaManager on each
> > node
> > > > > should
> > > > > > > > held:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping of "schema
> > > version"
> > > > > <-->
> > > > > > > > > > validated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide schema changes
> > > > history.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client side. Before any
> > > > key-value
> > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > operation
> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a given key-value
> pair.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no local-mapping
> exists
> > > > for a
> > > > > > > given
> > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema has a more
> > recent
> > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be validated against the
> > > latest
> > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object doesn't fit to the
> > > latest
> > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > depends
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail the operation
> > > > ('strict'
> > > > > > > mode)
> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a new schema version
> > > should
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > propagated
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server side we usually
> have
> > no
> > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > classes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change history is
> > available
> > > > > and a
> > > > > > > > tuple
> > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to upgrade any
> > > received
> > > > > > tuple
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > last
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow nodes to send
> > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > pairs
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't receive a schema
> update
> > > > yet)
> > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > reverting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node with newer
> classes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the
> > > same?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM
> > Ivan
> > > > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not ignore history.
> We
> > > had
> > > > a
> > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can resume it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00,
> Denis
> > > > Magda
> > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks for
> > > > > > explaining.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we need to have a
> > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms substitution.
> > I'll
> > > > > > > appreciate
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing pointers to any
> > relevant
> > > > IEPs
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > reasoning
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01
> PM
> > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the wording in the
> IEP
> > > is
> > > > a
> > > > > > > little
> > > > > > > > > bit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you should not create
> > > nested
> > > > > > POJOs,
> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO that is mapped
> to
> > a
> > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this correct?
> Please
> > > let
> > > > me
> > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the "cache" term, I
> > agree
> > > > > that
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can replace it with.
> > > > "Table"
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > tightly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional in our case.
> > Do
> > > > you
> > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > create a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37
> PM
> > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked the IEP again
> > and
> > > > > have a
> > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > > > questions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects
> and
> > > > > > > collections
> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should
> either
> > be
> > > > > > inlined
> > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL
> code
> > > > > snippet
> > > > > > > > > showing
> > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to work?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep using the
> terms
> > > > > "cache"
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right time to discuss
> an
> > > > > > alternate
> > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the "table"
> > should
> > > > stay
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one of the
> > primary
> > > > APIs
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at
> 12:26
> > PM
> > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your point. I agree
> > > that
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > automatic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last territory.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we support
> > > > automatic
> > > > > > > > > > evolution,
> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a cache without
> > > schema
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > inferring
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other words, we can have
> > both
> > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you
> think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at
> 5:59
> > > AM
> > > > > > Alexey
> > > > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got your
> > > concern
> > > > > > now.
> > > > > > > As
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > terminology, I am
> > > absolutely
> > > > > fine
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the approach best.
> > Dynamic
> > > or
> > > > > > > > evolving
> > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > corresponding changes
> to
> > > the
> > > > > IEP
> > > > > > > once
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > settle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в
> > > 11:33,
> > > > > Ivan
> > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for your
> > > answer!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My understanding is a
> > > > little
> > > > > > bit
> > > > > > > > > > > different.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > definitely should be
> > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is updated". I
> > > > treat a
> > > > > > > > common
> > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data manipulation
> > > > > > operations
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > clearly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > interesting
> > capabilities,
> > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > preventing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data
> > operations,
> > > > > > > > restricting
> > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first means
> > that
> > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > exists
> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is compliant with it
> -
> > > > that's
> > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last
> approach
> > > > > > mentioned
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is
> > > inferred
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > > data.
> > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing approach?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would like to
> > say,
> > > > that
> > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > terminology. And I
> > > suppose
> > > > if
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > confuses
> > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused as well. My
> > > > feeling
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > closer
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47
> > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an
> issue
> > > with
> > > > > > that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance and all the
> > > > stored
> > > > > > data
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > compliant
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is proposed. There
> > are
> > > no
> > > > > > > > > > restrictions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020
> > at
> > > > 9:52
> > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > Ivan
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit
> > > > confused
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1]
> (see
> > > > part
> > > > > X
> > > > > > > Semi
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Structured
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema"
> > > > > approach
> > > > > > > as a
> > > > > > > > > > kind
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53
> > > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could
> > you
> > > > > please
> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use
> > case
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If
> > so,
> > > > > what
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
> > > > > > understanding,
> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing
> > > > something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes,
> > if
> > > > all
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > ORM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > internally, then
> > > they
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > > easily
> > > > > > > > > > > > > translate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE
> > > > statement
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > lists
> > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data
> > > > integration
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be improved
> > once
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of
> > > > usability
> > > > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would revise
> the
> > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say
> > if
> > > > it's
> > > > > > > used
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael
> Pollind,
> > > I'll
> > > > > > loop
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > long
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support
> for
> > > > > > Micornaut
> > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came across some
> > > > > > challenges.
> > > > > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > > > > > > watch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite
> > > 3.0.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31,
> > 2020
> > > > at
> > > > > > 5:11
> > > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally
> > > speaking, I
> > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the
> > issue
> > > > if
> > > > > > > > > duplicate
> > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be
> > > > created
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > cache,
> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the
> > > schema
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > define
> > > > > > > > > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which
> fields
> > > are
> > > > > > > included
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be
> > > > compliant
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > this,
> > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a
> > set
> > > of
> > > > > > > > records,
> > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could
> > you
> > > > > please
> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use
> > case
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If
> > so,
> > > > > what
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
> > > > > > understanding,
> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing
> > > > something?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31,
> > > 2020
> > > > at
> > > > > > > 2:08
> > > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would
> propose
> > > > > adding
> > > > > > > > > another
> > > > > > > > > > > > point
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to
> the
> > > ORM
> > > > > > > > frameworks
> > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently,
> the
> > > > > storage
> > > > > > > > engine
> > > > > > > > > > > > > requires
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones
> that
> > > > > > > complicate
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially
> if
> > a
> > > > key
> > > > > > > object
> > > > > > > > > > > > comprises
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be
> nice
> > > if
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single entity
> > > > object
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > comes
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a
> > key
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > value.
> > > > > > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the
> > essential
> > > > > > public
> > > > > > > > APIs
> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > single-entity
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you
> > > think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug
> 28,
> > > > 2020
> > > > > at
> > > > > > > > 3:50
> > > > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the
> > big
> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > > proposed
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> "schema-first
> > > > > > > approach".
> > > > > > > > To
> > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this
> > > change:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please
> take a
> > > > look
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > let
> > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> suggestions,
> > or
> > > > > > > > objections.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[Alexey Goncharuk]

Folks,

I updated the IEP to contain the missing pieces; actually, most of the
questions here were covered by the text. Please let me know if there is
something still missing or unclear.

чт, 31 дек. 2020 г. в 12:48, Alexey Goncharuk <[hidden email]>:

> Mikhail and Igniters,
>
> Thanks for your comments. The questions are reasonable, though I think all
> concerns are addressed by the IEP as Val mentioned. I will update the
> document according to your questions in the following week or so, so we can
> have a constructive discussion further.
>
> ср, 30 дек. 2020 г. в 11:45, Michael Cherkasov <
> [hidden email]>:
>
>> Hi Val, Andrey,
>>
>> thank you for clarifying.
>>
>> I still have a few comments.
>>
>> 1. one table == one schema. KV vs SQL:
>> Looks like all agreed that KV is just a special case of a regular table
>> with (blob,blob) schema.
>> I worry about the case when the user starts from KV case and later will
>> try
>> to expand it and try to leverage SQL for the existing KV table it won't be
>> able to do so and will require to reload data. which isn't convenient and
>> sometimes not even possible. Is it possible to extract a new field from
>> (blob, blob) schema and apply index on it?
>>
>> 2. Could you please also list all ways of schema definition in the IEP? It
>> significant change and I bet the main point of this IEP, everyone hates
>> QueryEntities, they are difficult to manage and in general, it's very
>> confusing to have a data model(schemas) and node/cluster configuration in
>> one place.
>>
>> So there will be SchemaBuilder and SQL to define schemas, but Andrey also
>> mentioned annotations.
>>
>> I personally against configuration via annotations, while it's convenient
>> for development, it difficult to manage because different classes can be
>> deployed on different clients/servers nodes and it can lead to
>> unpredictable results.
>>
>> 3. IEP doesn't mention field type changes, only drop/add fields. Field
>> type
>> changes are extremely painful right now(if even possible), so it would be
>> nice if some scenarios would be supported(like int8->int16, or
>> int8->String).
>>
>> 4. got it, I thought IEP will have more details about the implementation.
>> I've seen Andrey even sent benchmark results for a new serialization, will
>> ping him about this.
>>
>> 5. Thanks for the clarification. I had a wrong understanding of strick
>> mode.
>>
>>
>> вт, 29 дек. 2020 г. в 19:32, Valentin Kulichenko <
>> [hidden email]>:
>>
>> > Hi Mike,
>> >
>> > Thanks for providing your feedback. Please see my comments below.
>> >
>> > I would also encourage you to go through the IEP-54 [1] - it has a lot
>> of
>> > detail on the topic.
>> >
>> > [1]
>> >
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
>> >
>> > -Val
>> >
>> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:22 PM Michael Cherkasov <
>> > [hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi all,
>> > >
>> > > I reviewed the mail thread and proposal page and I still don't fully
>> > > understand what is going to be changed, I would really appreciate it
>> if
>> > you
>> > > will answer a few questions:
>> > >
>> > > 1. Are you going to leave only one schema per cache? if so, will be
>> there
>> > > an option to have a table with arbitrary objects(pure KV case)?
>> > >
>> >
>> > My opinion is that KV case should be natively supported. I think this
>> still
>> > needs to be thought over, my current view on this is that we should have
>> > separate APIs for KV and more generic storages. KV storage can be
>> > implemented as a "table" with two BLOB fields where we will store
>> > serialized key-value pairs. That would imply deserialization on read,
>> but I
>> > believe this is OK for KV use cases. I'm happy to hear other ideas
>> though
>> > :)
>> >
>> >
>> > > 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0 have to define schema?
>> > SchemaBuilder
>> > > and SQL only? Is there an option to put the schema definition to the
>> > > configuration?(I really don't like this, I would prefer to have
>> > > separate scripts to create schemas)
>> > >
>> >
>> > There will be no such thing as a static configuration in the first
>> place.
>> > Tables and schemas are created in runtime. Even if there is a file
>> provided
>> > on node startup, this file is only applied in the scope of the 'start'
>> > operation. All configurations will be stored in a meta storage
>> available to
>> > all nodes, as opposed to individual files.
>> >
>> >
>> > > 3. Is there a way to change field type? if yes, can it be done in
>> > runtime?
>> > >
>> >
>> > Absolutely! IEP-54 has a whole section about schema evolution.
>> >
>> >
>> > > 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going to be re-worked too, is there
>> any
>> > > IEP for this?
>> > >
>> >
>> > BinaryMarshaller as a tool for arbitrary object serialization will be
>> gone,
>> > but we will reuse a lot of its concept to implement an internal tuple
>> > serialization mechanism. IEP-54 has the description of the proposed data
>> > format.
>> >
>> >
>> > > 5. I don't like automatic schema evaluation when a new field is added
>> > > automatically on record put, so is there a way to prohibit this
>> behavior?
>> > >  I think all schema changes should be done only explicitly except
>> initial
>> > > schema creation.
>> > >
>> >
>> > The way I see it is that we should have two modes: schema-first and
>> > schema-last. Schema-first means exactly what you've described - schemas
>> are
>> > defined and updated explicitly by the user. In the schema-last mode,
>> > the user does not deal with schemas, as they are inferred from the data
>> > inserted into tables. We should definitely not mix these modes - it has
>> to
>> > be one or another. And it probably makes sense to discuss which mode
>> should
>> > be the default one.
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Mike.
>> > >
>> > > пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey Mashenkov <
>> > [hidden email]
>> > > >:
>> > >
>> > > > Hi, Igniters.
>> > > >
>> > > > We all know that the current QueryEntity API is not convenient and
>> > needs
>> > > to
>> > > > be reworked.
>> > > > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema configuration public API
>> for
>> > > > Ignite 3.0.
>> > > >
>> > > > New schema configuration uses Builder pattern, which looks more
>> > > comfortable
>> > > > to use.
>> > > >
>> > > > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package with the API itself, and
>> a
>> > > draft
>> > > > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
>> > > > and a test that demonstrates how the API could be used.
>> > > >
>> > > > Please note:
>> > > >
>> > > > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with static factory methods.
>> > > > * The implementation is decoupled and can be easily extracted to
>> > separate
>> > > > module if we decide to do so.
>> > > > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are missed, they will be added
>> > > lately
>> > > > in separate tickes.
>> > > > * Index configuration extends marker interface that makes possible
>> to
>> > > > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
>> > > > Hopfully, we could add a persistent geo-indices support in future.
>> > > > * Supposedly, current table schema can be changed via builder-like
>> > > > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See
>> 'TableModificationBuilder'
>> > > for
>> > > > details.
>> > > > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have 'toBuilder()' converter for
>> that
>> > > > purpose as it is a Schema Manager responsibility to create mutator
>> > > objects
>> > > > from the current schema,
>> > > > but implementing the Schema manager is out of scope and will be
>> > designed
>> > > > within the next task.
>> > > > * Interfaces implementations are out of scope. I did not intend to
>> > merge
>> > > > them right now, but for test/demostration purposes.
>> > > >
>> > > > It is NOT the final version and some may be changed before the first
>> > > > release of course.
>> > > > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed with this approach or
>> some
>> > > > issues should be resolved at first.
>> > > >
>> > > > Any thoughts or objections?
>> > > > Are interfaces good enough to be merged within the current ticket?
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <[hidden email]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
>> > > > > 2. It requires adding new types to the internal representation,
>> > > protocol,
>> > > > > e.t.c.
>> > > > > 3. internal representation should be the same as we keep sign
>> types.
>> > So
>> > > > it
>> > > > > will not requires more memory
>> > > > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such types for platforms
>> which
>> > not
>> > > > > support unsigned types. For example, a user could derive -6 value
>> in
>> > > Java
>> > > > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits perspective will be
>> right). I
>> > > > think
>> > > > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such cases, especially it
>> will be
>> > > bad
>> > > > > for unsigned long when we require returns BigInteger type.
>> > > > > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix for new types like a
>> > > '250u' -
>> > > > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
>> > > > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive comparison logic for
>> > indexes
>> > > > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for expressions. I think it
>> not
>> > > > > possible for the current H2 engine and probably possible for the
>> new
>> > > > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from anybody who involved in
>> this
>> > > part
>> > > > >
>> > > > > WDYT?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey Goncharuk <
>> > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > >:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0: once we the actual
>> > type
>> > > > > > information, we can make proper runtime adjustments and
>> conversions
>> > > to
>> > > > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will be just a bit more
>> > > expensive.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <
>> [hidden email]
>> > >:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
>> > > > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons and so on are
>> broken
>> > > > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned this somewhere
>> > above.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document that SQL is not
>> supported
>> > on
>> > > > > those
>> > > > > > > types,
>> > > > > > > end of story.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
>> > > > > > > [hidden email]>
>> > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable request. I thought about
>> > this
>> > > > > when
>> > > > > > I
>> > > > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add these types right
>> > > away.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with
>> .NET
>> > > and
>> > > > > C++
>> > > > > > :)
>> > > > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually works as expected, it
>> needs
>> > > > some
>> > > > > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns are false):
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >    - It's true that equality check works properly, but for
>> SQL
>> > > > range
>> > > > > > > >    queries it will break unless some special care is taken
>> on
>> > > Java
>> > > > > > side:
>> > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will be converted to
>> -1,
>> > > > which
>> > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we don't have unsigned types
>> > now,
>> > > I
>> > > > > > doubt
>> > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > >    works.
>> > > > > > > >    - There is an obvious cross-platform data loss when
>> > > "intuitive"
>> > > > > type
>> > > > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8 corresponds to byte type in
>> > > .NET,
>> > > > > but
>> > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have to use short type in
>> > Java,
>> > > > and
>> > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > > >    will also need to take care of the range check during
>> > > > > > serialization).
>> > > > > > > I
>> > > > > > > >    think we can even allow to try to deserialize a value
>> into
>> > > > > arbitrary
>> > > > > > > > type,
>> > > > > > > >    but throw an exception if the range is out of bounds.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
>> > > > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once all the details
>> are
>> > > > settled
>> > > > > > > here?
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey Mashenkov <
>> > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't be treated
>> correctly
>> > > for
>> > > > > now
>> > > > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > I think we could make "true" support for unsigned types,
>> but
>> > > they
>> > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > > have
>> > > > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
>> > > > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map uint64 to Java long
>> > > > > primitive,
>> > > > > > > but
>> > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > BigInteger only.
>> > > > > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64 to Java long, but
>> treat
>> > > > > negative
>> > > > > > > > > values in a different way to preserve correct ordering.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > These limitations will affect only mixed environments when
>> > .Net
>> > > > and
>> > > > > > > Java
>> > > > > > > > > used to access the data.
>> > > > > > > > > Will this solution address your issues?
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
>> > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with
>> > .NET
>> > > > and
>> > > > > > C++
>> > > > > > > :)
>> > > > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as cache keys and
>> values,
>> > as
>> > > > > fields
>> > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > properties,
>> > > > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y clauses) - it
>> works
>> > > > > > > transparently
>> > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > > the users.
>> > > > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats those values as
>> > > > corresponding
>> > > > > > > signed
>> > > > > > > > > > types.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in some cases only
>> because
>> > > > there
>> > > > > > are
>> > > > > > > no
>> > > > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
>> > > > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very simple change to the
>> > > protocol
>> > > > -
>> > > > > > add
>> > > > > > > > type
>> > > > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as signed
>> counterparts.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
>> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
>> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise representation
>> is
>> > > the
>> > > > > > same)
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a uByte field and
>> map
>> > it
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > > > 'uint8'
>> > > > > > > > > > > column.
>> > > > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to "250" and put the
>> object
>> > > > into a
>> > > > > > > > table,
>> > > > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a single byte 'int8'
>> > column.
>> > > > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it to directly the
>> Java
>> > > > > object
>> > > > > > > > field
>> > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8 type to Java
>> 'short'
>> > > type
>> > > > > > > > > > > because the one expected to see "250" as a value which
>> > > > doesn't
>> > > > > > fit
>> > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > signed type.
>> > > > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a BigInteger field in
>> Java.
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat column value as Java
>> 'byte'
>> > as
>> > > > is,
>> > > > > > > > because
>> > > > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a negative value, so it
>> should
>> > > be
>> > > > > cast
>> > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > short
>> > > > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger for uint64)
>> > > > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will require a different
>> > > comparator.
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
>> > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a good idea.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the simple approach I
>> > > > described?
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing range for unsigned
>> types
>> > > > then
>> > > > > we
>> > > > > > > > could
>> > > > > > > > > > > add a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on schema level
>> (like
>> > > > > > nullability
>> > > > > > > > > flag)
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types in storage.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate storage type-system
>> and
>> > > > binary
>> > > > > > > > > protocol
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of type will match 1 to
>> 1
>> > > with
>> > > > > > > storage
>> > > > > > > > > > > (native)
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > type.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either have a separate type
>> id
>> > or
>> > > > > treat
>> > > > > > > > > > > serialized
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed or unsigned
>> flag).
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever foresee the
>> consequences
>> > of
>> > > > > using
>> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > types.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned types perfectly
>> works
>> > > > with
>> > > > > > some
>> > > > > > > > > > > database,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite successor confession
>> with
>> > our
>> > > > > > > "native"
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he can use the power of
>> > Ignite
>> > > > > > Compute
>> > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > > > > > Java
>> > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either fail to use his
>> > unsigned
>> > > > data
>> > > > > > on
>> > > > > > > > Java
>> > > > > > > > > > due
>> > > > > > > > > > > > or
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due to natural Java type
>> > system
>> > > > > > > > limitations
>> > > > > > > > > > > e.g.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively supported types with
>> possible
>> > > > value
>> > > > > > > > ranges
>> > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is what trade-off we found
>> > > > > acceptable:
>> > > > > > > > > > narrowing
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use types of wider range on
>> > > > systems
>> > > > > > like
>> > > > > > > > > Java.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor Sapego <
>> > > > > > > [hidden email]>
>> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so hard to implement
>> > > > > comparison
>> > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not seem to be a
>> big
>> > > issue
>> > > > > > from
>> > > > > > > my
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned types from Java - I
>> > > think,
>> > > > > if
>> > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > user
>> > > > > > > > > > > uses
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to interact with it
>> from
>> > > Java
>> > > > he
>> > > > > > > knows
>> > > > > > > > > > what
>> > > > > > > > > > > he
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from platforms where
>> they
>> > > have
>> > > > > > native
>> > > > > > > > > > support
>> > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > widely
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where users currently
>> > have
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > > make a
>> > > > > > > > > > > manual
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > type
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > casting
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using unsigned types when they
>> > use
>> > > > > > Ignite.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
>> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for those types
>> > (basically,
>> > > > just
>> > > > > > add
>> > > > > > > > > more
>> > > > > > > > > > > type
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise
>> > > representation
>> > > > > is
>> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > same)
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned integers, so
>> we
>> > can
>> > > > > > simply
>> > > > > > > > say
>> > > > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative comparison is not
>> > supported
>> > > > in
>> > > > > > SQL
>> > > > > > > > > > > (equality
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM Andrey
>> Mashenkov
>> > <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have i8 or int8
>> instead of
>> > > > > > Integer.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't address the issue.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types should be portable
>> > across
>> > > > > > > different
>> > > > > > > > > > > systems
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type support.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is that unsigned types
>> > cover
>> > > > > > > different
>> > > > > > > > > > > ranges.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to introduce a uLong.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big deal to add uLong
>> > type
>> > > > > > support
>> > > > > > > > at
>> > > > > > > > > > > > storage
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and then use it in
>> e.g.
>> > > > .Net
>> > > > > > > only.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support it in e.g. Java?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range is about
>> (2^-63
>> > ..
>> > > > > 2^63)
>> > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > uLong
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > range
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to restrict range to
>> (0
>> > ..
>> > > > > > 2^63).
>> > > > > > > > This
>> > > > > > > > > > > > allows
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but doesn't look
>> like
>> > a
>> > > > > 'real'
>> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > uLong
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse when the user will
>> use
>> > > > > uByte,
>> > > > > > as
>> > > > > > > > > > > > limitation
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map unsigned types
>> to a
>> > > > type
>> > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > wider
>> > > > > > > > > > > type
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative values. E.g.
>> uLong to
>> > > > > > > BigInteger.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive Java type for
>> Long
>> > > here.
>> > > > > > > > However,
>> > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > still
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8 bytes, but
>> have a
>> > > > > special
>> > > > > > > > > > comparator
>> > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid unwanted
>> > deserialization.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Pavel
>> Tupitsyn
>> > <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of "long, short,
>> byte"
>> > in
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > > protocol
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style, which is concise
>> and
>> > > > > > > unambiguous:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM Igor
>> Sapego <
>> > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support that. Also, if we are
>> > > aiming
>> > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger platform-independance,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may want to support
>> > > > > bit-notation
>> > > > > > > > > (int32,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a different type on
>> > different
>> > > > > > > platforms
>> > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often when using ODBC for
>> > > > example).
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM Pavel
>> > > Tupitsyn
>> > > > <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should support unsigned
>> data
>> > > > types:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have them, but many
>> other
>> > > > > languages
>> > > > > > > do,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing number of thin
>> > clients
>> > > > > this
>> > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > important.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in current Ignite.NET
>> > > > > implementation
>> > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > > > > > store
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain when it comes
>> to
>> > > > > > metadata,
>> > > > > > > > > binary
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to deserialize int as uint
>> > when
>> > > > you
>> > > > > > > have
>> > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > > > > class,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM
>> Andrey
>> > > > > > Mashenkov <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both serializers use
>> > > reflection
>> > > > > > API.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will allow users to
>> > configure
>> > > > > > static
>> > > > > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > > > > > > > along
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still need to
>> validate
>> > > user
>> > > > > > > classes
>> > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > > > > > > > client
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in the grid  and
>> > > > reflection
>> > > > > > API
>> > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > only
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few articles on the
>> > > internet
>> > > > > on
>> > > > > > > how
>> > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > enable
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task for supporting
>> > > GraalVM,
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > maybe
>> > > > > > > > > > > > someone
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM will suggest a
>> > > > solution
>> > > > > > or
>> > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > > > proper
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is found, we could
>> > allow
>> > > > > users
>> > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > write
>> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > own
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I don't think it is
>> a
>> > > good
>> > > > > idea
>> > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > expose
>> > > > > > > > > > > > any
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the public.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM
>> Denis
>> > > > Magda <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the update,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the serializers take
>> into
>> > > > > > > > consideration
>> > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native-image-generation feature of
>> > > > GraalVM?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current binary
>> marshaller,
>> > we
>> > > > > can't
>> > > > > > > even
>> > > > > > > > > > > > generate
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using our thin client
>> > > APIs.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM
>> > Andrey
>> > > > > > > Mashenkov
>> > > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to continue discussion
>> of
>> > > > IEP-54
>> > > > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who is interested
>> > had a
>> > > > > > chance
>> > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > get
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to ask
>> > > > questions
>> > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > share
>> > > > > > > > > > > your
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a prototype of
>> > > serializer
>> > > > > [2]
>> > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > data
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I compared 2
>> approaches
>> > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > (de)serialize
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java reflection/unsafe API
>> and
>> > > > > similar
>> > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > one
>> > > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second one generates
>> > > serializer
>> > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > > > particular
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > user
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library for compilation.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows better results
>> in
>> > > > > > > benchmarks.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go with it as
>> > default
>> > > > > > > serializer
>> > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > have
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation as a fallback if
>> > > someone
>> > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > > have
>> > > > > > > > > > > > issues
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of tasks
>> under
>> > the
>> > > > > > > umbrella
>> > > > > > > > > > ticket
>> > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to create more
>> > tickets
>> > > > for
>> > > > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > > > > > > > manager
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation, but would like
>> to
>> > > > clarify
>> > > > > > > some
>> > > > > > > > > > > details.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought schemaManager on each
>> > node
>> > > > > should
>> > > > > > > > held:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping of "schema
>> > > version"
>> > > > > <-->
>> > > > > > > > > > validated
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > local
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide schema changes
>> > > > history.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client side. Before any
>> > > > key-value
>> > > > > > API
>> > > > > > > > > > > operation
>> > > > > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a given key-value
>> pair.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no local-mapping
>> exists
>> > > > for a
>> > > > > > > given
>> > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema has a more
>> > recent
>> > > > > > version
>> > > > > > > > > then
>> > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be validated against the
>> > > latest
>> > > > > > > version
>> > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > local
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object doesn't fit to the
>> > > latest
>> > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > > > > then
>> > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > depends
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail the operation
>> > > > ('strict'
>> > > > > > > mode)
>> > > > > > > > > or
>> > > > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > new
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a new schema version
>> > > should
>> > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > > propagated
>> > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server side we usually
>> have
>> > no
>> > > > > > > key-value
>> > > > > > > > > > > classes
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change history is
>> > available
>> > > > > and a
>> > > > > > > > tuple
>> > > > > > > > > > has
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to upgrade any
>> > > received
>> > > > > > tuple
>> > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > last
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow nodes to
>> send
>> > > > > key-value
>> > > > > > > > pairs
>> > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't receive a schema
>> update
>> > > > yet)
>> > > > > > > > without
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > reverting
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node with newer
>> classes.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the
>> > > same?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
>> > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM
>> > Ivan
>> > > > > > > Pavlukhin
>> > > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not ignore history.
>> We
>> > > had
>> > > > a
>> > > > > > > thread
>> > > > > > > > > [1]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > many
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can resume it.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00,
>> Denis
>> > > > Magda
>> > > > > <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks for
>> > > > > > explaining.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we need to have a
>> > > > separate
>> > > > > > > > > > discussion
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms substitution.
>> > I'll
>> > > > > > > appreciate
>> > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > if
>> > > > > > > > > > > > you
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing pointers to any
>> > relevant
>> > > > IEPs
>> > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > reasoning
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01
>> PM
>> > > > > Valentin
>> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
>> > > > > > > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> [hidden email]>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the wording in the
>> IEP
>> > > is
>> > > > a
>> > > > > > > little
>> > > > > > > > > bit
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you should not create
>> > > nested
>> > > > > > POJOs,
>> > > > > > > > but
>> > > > > > > > > > > > rather
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO that is mapped
>> to
>> > a
>> > > > > > > particular
>> > > > > > > > > > > schema.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > In
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not supported.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this correct?
>> Please
>> > > let
>> > > > me
>> > > > > > > know
>> > > > > > > > if
>> > > > > > > > > > I'm
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > missing
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the "cache" term, I
>> > agree
>> > > > > that
>> > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can replace it
>> with.
>> > > > "Table"
>> > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > tightly
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional in our
>> case.
>> > Do
>> > > > you
>> > > > > > want
>> > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > create a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at
>> 4:37 PM
>> > > > Denis
>> > > > > > > > Magda <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked the IEP again
>> > and
>> > > > > have a
>> > > > > > > few
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > questions.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects
>> and
>> > > > > > > collections
>> > > > > > > > > are
>> > > > > > > > > > > not
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should
>> either
>> > be
>> > > > > > inlined
>> > > > > > > > > into
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL
>> code
>> > > > > snippet
>> > > > > > > > > showing
>> > > > > > > > > > > how
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to work?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep using the
>> terms
>> > > > > "cache"
>> > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > "table"
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right time to discuss
>> an
>> > > > > > alternate
>> > > > > > > > name
>> > > > > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the "table"
>> > should
>> > > > stay
>> > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one of the
>> > primary
>> > > > APIs
>> > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at
>> 12:26
>> > PM
>> > > > > > > Valentin
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > [hidden email]>
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your point. I
>> agree
>> > > that
>> > > > > with
>> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > automatic
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last territory.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we support
>> > > > automatic
>> > > > > > > > > > evolution,
>> > > > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a cache without
>> > > schema
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > inferring
>> > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other words, we can have
>> > both
>> > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"
>> > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you
>> think?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at
>> 5:59
>> > > AM
>> > > > > > Alexey
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> [hidden email]
>> > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got your
>> > > concern
>> > > > > > now.
>> > > > > > > As
>> > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > terminology, I am
>> > > absolutely
>> > > > > fine
>> > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > > > > changing
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the approach best.
>> > Dynamic
>> > > or
>> > > > > > > > evolving
>> > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > corresponding changes
>> to
>> > > the
>> > > > > IEP
>> > > > > > > once
>> > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > > > > > > > settle
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в
>> > > 11:33,
>> > > > > Ivan
>> > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for your
>> > > answer!
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My understanding is
>> a
>> > > > little
>> > > > > > bit
>> > > > > > > > > > > different.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > definitely should be
>> > > > > possible.
>> > > > > > > But
>> > > > > > > > I
>> > > > > > > > > > see
>> > > > > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > main
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is updated".
>> I
>> > > > treat a
>> > > > > > > > common
>> > > > > > > > > > SQL
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data
>> manipulation
>> > > > > > operations
>> > > > > > > > are
>> > > > > > > > > > > > clearly
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > interesting
>> > capabilities,
>> > > > > e.g.
>> > > > > > > > > > preventing
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data
>> > operations,
>> > > > > > > > restricting
>> > > > > > > > > > > user
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first means
>> > that
>> > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > > > > exists
>> > > > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is compliant with
>> it -
>> > > > that's
>> > > > > > > > exactly
>> > > > > > > > > > > what
>> > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last
>> approach
>> > > > > > mentioned
>> > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > [1]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > also
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is
>> > > inferred
>> > > > > from
>> > > > > > > > data.
>> > > > > > > > > > Is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > not
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing approach?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would like to
>> > say,
>> > > > that
>> > > > > > my
>> > > > > > > > main
>> > > > > > > > > > > > concern
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > terminology. And I
>> > > suppose
>> > > > if
>> > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > confuses
>> > > > > > > > > > > > me
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused as well. My
>> > > > feeling
>> > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > closer
>> > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47
>> > > GMT+03:00,
>> > > > > > > Valentin
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an
>> issue
>> > > with
>> > > > > > that.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance and all
>> the
>> > > > stored
>> > > > > > data
>> > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > compliant
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is proposed. There
>> > are
>> > > no
>> > > > > > > > > > restrictions
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5,
>> 2020
>> > at
>> > > > 9:52
>> > > > > > PM
>> > > > > > > > Ivan
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [hidden email]>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit
>> > > > confused
>> > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1]
>> (see
>> > > > part
>> > > > > X
>> > > > > > > Semi
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Structured
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic
>> schema"
>> > > > > approach
>> > > > > > > as a
>> > > > > > > > > > kind
>> > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53
>> > > > GMT+03:00,
>> > > > > > > Denis
>> > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could
>> > you
>> > > > > please
>> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
>> > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use
>> > case
>> > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)?
>> If
>> > so,
>> > > > > what
>> > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > missing
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
>> > > > > > understanding,
>> > > > > > > > all
>> > > > > > > > > > you
>> > > > > > > > > > > > need
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing
>> > > > something?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point,
>> yes,
>> > if
>> > > > all
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > ORM
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > internally,
>> then
>> > > they
>> > > > > can
>> > > > > > > > easily
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > translate
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE
>> > > > statement
>> > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > > lists
>> > > > > > > > > > > all
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data
>> > > > integration
>> > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > already
>> > > > > > > > > > > > based
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be improved
>> > once
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > schema-first
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of
>> > > > usability
>> > > > > > > > issues.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would revise
>> the
>> > > > > > Hibernate
>> > > > > > > > > > > > integration
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't
>> say
>> > if
>> > > > it's
>> > > > > > > used
>> > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > > > lot
>> > > > > > > > > > > > but
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael
>> Pollind,
>> > > I'll
>> > > > > > loop
>> > > > > > > > you
>> > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > long
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support
>> for
>> > > > > > Micornaut
>> > > > > > > > > Data
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came across
>> some
>> > > > > > challenges.
>> > > > > > > > > Just
>> > > > > > > > > > > > watch
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in
>> Ignite
>> > > 3.0.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31,
>> > 2020
>> > > > at
>> > > > > > 5:11
>> > > > > > > > PM
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally
>> > > speaking, I
>> > > > > > > believe
>> > > > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the
>> > issue
>> > > > if
>> > > > > > > > > duplicate
>> > > > > > > > > > > > fields
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> because
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be
>> > > > created
>> > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > > > cache,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > not
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the
>> > > schema
>> > > > > > will
>> > > > > > > > > define
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > whether
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which
>> fields
>> > > are
>> > > > > > > included
>> > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > > > case
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be
>> > > > compliant
>> > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > this,
>> > > > > > > > > > > so
>> > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a
>> > set
>> > > of
>> > > > > > > > records,
>> > > > > > > > > > > rather
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could
>> > you
>> > > > > please
>> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
>> > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use
>> > case
>> > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)?
>> If
>> > so,
>> > > > > what
>> > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > missing
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
>> > > > > > understanding,
>> > > > > > > > all
>> > > > > > > > > > you
>> > > > > > > > > > > > need
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing
>> > > > something?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug
>> 31,
>> > > 2020
>> > > > at
>> > > > > > > 2:08
>> > > > > > > > PM
>> > > > > > > > > > > Denis
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [hidden email]>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would
>> propose
>> > > > > adding
>> > > > > > > > > another
>> > > > > > > > > > > > point
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to
>> the
>> > > ORM
>> > > > > > > > frameworks
>> > > > > > > > > > > such
>> > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many others.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently,
>> the
>> > > > > storage
>> > > > > > > > engine
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > requires
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones
>> that
>> > > > > > > complicate
>> > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > usage
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially
>> if
>> > a
>> > > > key
>> > > > > > > object
>> > > > > > > > > > > > comprises
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found here:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be
>> nice
>> > > if
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > > new
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single
>> entity
>> > > > object
>> > > > > > when
>> > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > > comes
>> > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into
>> a
>> > key
>> > > > and
>> > > > > > > > value.
>> > > > > > > > > > Just
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > want
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the
>> > essential
>> > > > > > public
>> > > > > > > > APIs
>> > > > > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > single-entity
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you
>> > > think?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug
>> 28,
>> > > > 2020
>> > > > > at
>> > > > > > > > 3:50
>> > > > > > > > > PM
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the
>> > big
>> > > > > > changes
>> > > > > > > > > > proposed
>> > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
>> "schema-first
>> > > > > > > approach".
>> > > > > > > > To
>> > > > > > > > > > add
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > more
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this
>> > > change:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please
>> take a
>> > > > look
>> > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > let
>> > > > > > > > > me
>> > > > > > > > > > > > know
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
>> suggestions,
>> > or
>> > > > > > > > objections.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Best regards,
>> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>

[Andrew Mashenkov]

I've updated a PR regarding your feedback [1].

[1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:58 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Folks,
>
> I updated the IEP to contain the missing pieces; actually, most of the
> questions here were covered by the text. Please let me know if there is
> something still missing or unclear.
>
> чт, 31 дек. 2020 г. в 12:48, Alexey Goncharuk <[hidden email]
> >:
>
> > Mikhail and Igniters,
> >
> > Thanks for your comments. The questions are reasonable, though I think
> all
> > concerns are addressed by the IEP as Val mentioned. I will update the
> > document according to your questions in the following week or so, so we
> can
> > have a constructive discussion further.
> >
> > ср, 30 дек. 2020 г. в 11:45, Michael Cherkasov <
> > [hidden email]>:
> >
> >> Hi Val, Andrey,
> >>
> >> thank you for clarifying.
> >>
> >> I still have a few comments.
> >>
> >> 1. one table == one schema. KV vs SQL:
> >> Looks like all agreed that KV is just a special case of a regular table
> >> with (blob,blob) schema.
> >> I worry about the case when the user starts from KV case and later will
> >> try
> >> to expand it and try to leverage SQL for the existing KV table it won't
> be
> >> able to do so and will require to reload data. which isn't convenient
> and
> >> sometimes not even possible. Is it possible to extract a new field from
> >> (blob, blob) schema and apply index on it?
> >>
> >> 2. Could you please also list all ways of schema definition in the IEP?
> It
> >> significant change and I bet the main point of this IEP, everyone hates
> >> QueryEntities, they are difficult to manage and in general, it's very
> >> confusing to have a data model(schemas) and node/cluster configuration
> in
> >> one place.
> >>
> >> So there will be SchemaBuilder and SQL to define schemas, but Andrey
> also
> >> mentioned annotations.
> >>
> >> I personally against configuration via annotations, while it's
> convenient
> >> for development, it difficult to manage because different classes can be
> >> deployed on different clients/servers nodes and it can lead to
> >> unpredictable results.
> >>
> >> 3. IEP doesn't mention field type changes, only drop/add fields. Field
> >> type
> >> changes are extremely painful right now(if even possible), so it would
> be
> >> nice if some scenarios would be supported(like int8->int16, or
> >> int8->String).
> >>
> >> 4. got it, I thought IEP will have more details about the
> implementation.
> >> I've seen Andrey even sent benchmark results for a new serialization,
> will
> >> ping him about this.
> >>
> >> 5. Thanks for the clarification. I had a wrong understanding of strick
> >> mode.
> >>
> >>
> >> вт, 29 дек. 2020 г. в 19:32, Valentin Kulichenko <
> >> [hidden email]>:
> >>
> >> > Hi Mike,
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for providing your feedback. Please see my comments below.
> >> >
> >> > I would also encourage you to go through the IEP-54 [1] - it has a lot
> >> of
> >> > detail on the topic.
> >> >
> >> > [1]
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> >> >
> >> > -Val
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:22 PM Michael Cherkasov <
> >> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi all,
> >> > >
> >> > > I reviewed the mail thread and proposal page and I still don't fully
> >> > > understand what is going to be changed, I would really appreciate it
> >> if
> >> > you
> >> > > will answer a few questions:
> >> > >
> >> > > 1. Are you going to leave only one schema per cache? if so, will be
> >> there
> >> > > an option to have a table with arbitrary objects(pure KV case)?
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > My opinion is that KV case should be natively supported. I think this
> >> still
> >> > needs to be thought over, my current view on this is that we should
> have
> >> > separate APIs for KV and more generic storages. KV storage can be
> >> > implemented as a "table" with two BLOB fields where we will store
> >> > serialized key-value pairs. That would imply deserialization on read,
> >> but I
> >> > believe this is OK for KV use cases. I'm happy to hear other ideas
> >> though
> >> > :)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0 have to define schema?
> >> > SchemaBuilder
> >> > > and SQL only? Is there an option to put the schema definition to the
> >> > > configuration?(I really don't like this, I would prefer to have
> >> > > separate scripts to create schemas)
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > There will be no such thing as a static configuration in the first
> >> place.
> >> > Tables and schemas are created in runtime. Even if there is a file
> >> provided
> >> > on node startup, this file is only applied in the scope of the 'start'
> >> > operation. All configurations will be stored in a meta storage
> >> available to
> >> > all nodes, as opposed to individual files.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > 3. Is there a way to change field type? if yes, can it be done in
> >> > runtime?
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Absolutely! IEP-54 has a whole section about schema evolution.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going to be re-worked too, is
> there
> >> any
> >> > > IEP for this?
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > BinaryMarshaller as a tool for arbitrary object serialization will be
> >> gone,
> >> > but we will reuse a lot of its concept to implement an internal tuple
> >> > serialization mechanism. IEP-54 has the description of the proposed
> data
> >> > format.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > 5. I don't like automatic schema evaluation when a new field is
> added
> >> > > automatically on record put, so is there a way to prohibit this
> >> behavior?
> >> > >  I think all schema changes should be done only explicitly except
> >> initial
> >> > > schema creation.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > The way I see it is that we should have two modes: schema-first and
> >> > schema-last. Schema-first means exactly what you've described -
> schemas
> >> are
> >> > defined and updated explicitly by the user. In the schema-last mode,
> >> > the user does not deal with schemas, as they are inferred from the
> data
> >> > inserted into tables. We should definitely not mix these modes - it
> has
> >> to
> >> > be one or another. And it probably makes sense to discuss which mode
> >> should
> >> > be the default one.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks,
> >> > > Mike.
> >> > >
> >> > > пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey Mashenkov <
> >> > [hidden email]
> >> > > >:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Hi, Igniters.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > We all know that the current QueryEntity API is not convenient and
> >> > needs
> >> > > to
> >> > > > be reworked.
> >> > > > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema configuration public API
> >> for
> >> > > > Ignite 3.0.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > New schema configuration uses Builder pattern, which looks more
> >> > > comfortable
> >> > > > to use.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package with the API itself,
> and
> >> a
> >> > > draft
> >> > > > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
> >> > > > and a test that demonstrates how the API could be used.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Please note:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with static factory
> methods.
> >> > > > * The implementation is decoupled and can be easily extracted to
> >> > separate
> >> > > > module if we decide to do so.
> >> > > > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are missed, they will be
> added
> >> > > lately
> >> > > > in separate tickes.
> >> > > > * Index configuration extends marker interface that makes possible
> >> to
> >> > > > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
> >> > > > Hopfully, we could add a persistent geo-indices support in future.
> >> > > > * Supposedly, current table schema can be changed via builder-like
> >> > > > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See
> >> 'TableModificationBuilder'
> >> > > for
> >> > > > details.
> >> > > > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have 'toBuilder()' converter for
> >> that
> >> > > > purpose as it is a Schema Manager responsibility to create mutator
> >> > > objects
> >> > > > from the current schema,
> >> > > > but implementing the Schema manager is out of scope and will be
> >> > designed
> >> > > > within the next task.
> >> > > > * Interfaces implementations are out of scope. I did not intend to
> >> > merge
> >> > > > them right now, but for test/demostration purposes.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > It is NOT the final version and some may be changed before the
> first
> >> > > > release of course.
> >> > > > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed with this approach or
> >> some
> >> > > > issues should be resolved at first.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Any thoughts or objections?
> >> > > > Are interfaces good enough to be merged within the current ticket?
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <[hidden email]
> >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
> >> > > > > 2. It requires adding new types to the internal representation,
> >> > > protocol,
> >> > > > > e.t.c.
> >> > > > > 3. internal representation should be the same as we keep sign
> >> types.
> >> > So
> >> > > > it
> >> > > > > will not requires more memory
> >> > > > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such types for platforms
> >> which
> >> > not
> >> > > > > support unsigned types. For example, a user could derive -6
> value
> >> in
> >> > > Java
> >> > > > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits perspective will be
> >> right). I
> >> > > > think
> >> > > > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such cases, especially it
> >> will be
> >> > > bad
> >> > > > > for unsigned long when we require returns BigInteger type.
> >> > > > > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix for new types like a
> >> > > '250u' -
> >> > > > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
> >> > > > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive comparison logic for
> >> > indexes
> >> > > > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for expressions. I think it
> >> not
> >> > > > > possible for the current H2 engine and probably possible for the
> >> new
> >> > > > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from anybody who involved in
> >> this
> >> > > part
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > WDYT?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey Goncharuk <
> >> > > > [hidden email]
> >> > > > > >:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0: once we the
> actual
> >> > type
> >> > > > > > information, we can make proper runtime adjustments and
> >> conversions
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will be just a bit more
> >> > > expensive.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> >> [hidden email]
> >> > >:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
> >> > > > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons and so on are
> >> broken
> >> > > > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned this somewhere
> >> > above.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document that SQL is not
> >> supported
> >> > on
> >> > > > > those
> >> > > > > > > types,
> >> > > > > > > end of story.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable request. I thought
> about
> >> > this
> >> > > > > when
> >> > > > > > I
> >> > > > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add these types
> right
> >> > > away.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with
> >> .NET
> >> > > and
> >> > > > > C++
> >> > > > > > :)
> >> > > > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually works as expected, it
> >> needs
> >> > > > some
> >> > > > > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns are false):
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >    - It's true that equality check works properly, but for
> >> SQL
> >> > > > range
> >> > > > > > > >    queries it will break unless some special care is taken
> >> on
> >> > > Java
> >> > > > > > side:
> >> > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will be converted to
> >> -1,
> >> > > > which
> >> > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we don't have unsigned
> types
> >> > now,
> >> > > I
> >> > > > > > doubt
> >> > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > >    works.
> >> > > > > > > >    - There is an obvious cross-platform data loss when
> >> > > "intuitive"
> >> > > > > type
> >> > > > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8 corresponds to byte type
> in
> >> > > .NET,
> >> > > > > but
> >> > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have to use short type
> in
> >> > Java,
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > > >    will also need to take care of the range check during
> >> > > > > > serialization).
> >> > > > > > > I
> >> > > > > > > >    think we can even allow to try to deserialize a value
> >> into
> >> > > > > arbitrary
> >> > > > > > > > type,
> >> > > > > > > >    but throw an exception if the range is out of bounds.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
> >> > > > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once all the details
> >> are
> >> > > > settled
> >> > > > > > > here?
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey Mashenkov <
> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> >> > > > > > > > >:
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't be treated
> >> correctly
> >> > > for
> >> > > > > now
> >> > > > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > I think we could make "true" support for unsigned types,
> >> but
> >> > > they
> >> > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > > > have
> >> > > > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
> >> > > > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map uint64 to Java
> long
> >> > > > > primitive,
> >> > > > > > > but
> >> > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > BigInteger only.
> >> > > > > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64 to Java long, but
> >> treat
> >> > > > > negative
> >> > > > > > > > > values in a different way to preserve correct ordering.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > These limitations will affect only mixed environments
> when
> >> > .Net
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > > > Java
> >> > > > > > > > > used to access the data.
> >> > > > > > > > > Will this solution address your issues?
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> >> > > > > [hidden email]
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning
> with
> >> > .NET
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > > C++
> >> > > > > > > :)
> >> > > > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as cache keys and
> >> values,
> >> > as
> >> > > > > fields
> >> > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > properties,
> >> > > > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y clauses) - it
> >> works
> >> > > > > > > transparently
> >> > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > > the users.
> >> > > > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats those values as
> >> > > > corresponding
> >> > > > > > > signed
> >> > > > > > > > > > types.
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in some cases only
> >> because
> >> > > > there
> >> > > > > > are
> >> > > > > > > no
> >> > > > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> >> > > > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very simple change to the
> >> > > protocol
> >> > > > -
> >> > > > > > add
> >> > > > > > > > type
> >> > > > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as signed
> >> counterparts.
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> >> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise
> representation
> >> is
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > same)
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a uByte field and
> >> map
> >> > it
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > 'uint8'
> >> > > > > > > > > > > column.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to "250" and put the
> >> object
> >> > > > into a
> >> > > > > > > > table,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a single byte 'int8'
> >> > column.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it to directly the
> >> Java
> >> > > > > object
> >> > > > > > > > field
> >> > > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8 type to Java
> >> 'short'
> >> > > type
> >> > > > > > > > > > > because the one expected to see "250" as a value
> which
> >> > > > doesn't
> >> > > > > > fit
> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > signed type.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a BigInteger field in
> >> Java.
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat column value as Java
> >> 'byte'
> >> > as
> >> > > > is,
> >> > > > > > > > because
> >> > > > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a negative value, so it
> >> should
> >> > > be
> >> > > > > cast
> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > short
> >> > > > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger for uint64)
> >> > > > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will require a different
> >> > > comparator.
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a good idea.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the simple approach I
> >> > > > described?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing range for unsigned
> >> types
> >> > > > then
> >> > > > > we
> >> > > > > > > > could
> >> > > > > > > > > > > add a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on schema level
> >> (like
> >> > > > > > nullability
> >> > > > > > > > > flag)
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types in storage.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate storage type-system
> >> and
> >> > > > binary
> >> > > > > > > > > protocol
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of type will match 1
> to
> >> 1
> >> > > with
> >> > > > > > > storage
> >> > > > > > > > > > > (native)
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either have a separate
> type
> >> id
> >> > or
> >> > > > > treat
> >> > > > > > > > > > > serialized
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed or unsigned
> >> flag).
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever foresee the
> >> consequences
> >> > of
> >> > > > > using
> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > types.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned types perfectly
> >> works
> >> > > > with
> >> > > > > > some
> >> > > > > > > > > > > database,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite successor confession
> >> with
> >> > our
> >> > > > > > > "native"
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he can use the power of
> >> > Ignite
> >> > > > > > Compute
> >> > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > > > > > Java
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either fail to use his
> >> > unsigned
> >> > > > data
> >> > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > > > Java
> >> > > > > > > > > > due
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due to natural Java type
> >> > system
> >> > > > > > > > limitations
> >> > > > > > > > > > > e.g.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively supported types with
> >> possible
> >> > > > value
> >> > > > > > > > ranges
> >> > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is what trade-off we found
> >> > > > > acceptable:
> >> > > > > > > > > > narrowing
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use types of wider range
> on
> >> > > > systems
> >> > > > > > like
> >> > > > > > > > > Java.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor Sapego <
> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so hard to
> implement
> >> > > > > comparison
> >> > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not seem to be a
> >> big
> >> > > issue
> >> > > > > > from
> >> > > > > > > my
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned types from Java
> - I
> >> > > think,
> >> > > > > if
> >> > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > > > user
> >> > > > > > > > > > > uses
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to interact with it
> >> from
> >> > > Java
> >> > > > he
> >> > > > > > > knows
> >> > > > > > > > > > what
> >> > > > > > > > > > > he
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from platforms where
> >> they
> >> > > have
> >> > > > > > native
> >> > > > > > > > > > support
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > widely
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where users
> currently
> >> > have
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > > make a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > manual
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > casting
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using unsigned types when
> they
> >> > use
> >> > > > > > Ignite.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM Pavel
> Tupitsyn <
> >> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for those types
> >> > (basically,
> >> > > > just
> >> > > > > > add
> >> > > > > > > > > more
> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise
> >> > > representation
> >> > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > same)
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned integers, so
> >> we
> >> > can
> >> > > > > > simply
> >> > > > > > > > say
> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative comparison is not
> >> > supported
> >> > > > in
> >> > > > > > SQL
> >> > > > > > > > > > > (equality
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM Andrey
> >> Mashenkov
> >> > <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have i8 or int8
> >> instead of
> >> > > > > > Integer.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't address the issue.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types should be portable
> >> > across
> >> > > > > > > different
> >> > > > > > > > > > > systems
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type support.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is that unsigned types
> >> > cover
> >> > > > > > > different
> >> > > > > > > > > > > ranges.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to introduce a uLong.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big deal to add
> uLong
> >> > type
> >> > > > > > support
> >> > > > > > > > at
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > storage
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and then use it in
> >> e.g.
> >> > > > .Net
> >> > > > > > > only.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support it in e.g. Java?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range is about
> >> (2^-63
> >> > ..
> >> > > > > 2^63)
> >> > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > uLong
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > range
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to restrict range
> to
> >> (0
> >> > ..
> >> > > > > > 2^63).
> >> > > > > > > > This
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but doesn't look
> >> like
> >> > a
> >> > > > > 'real'
> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uLong
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse when the user
> will
> >> use
> >> > > > > uByte,
> >> > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > limitation
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map unsigned types
> >> to a
> >> > > > type
> >> > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > wider
> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative values. E.g.
> >> uLong to
> >> > > > > > > BigInteger.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive Java type for
> >> Long
> >> > > here.
> >> > > > > > > > However,
> >> > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > still
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8 bytes, but
> >> have a
> >> > > > > special
> >> > > > > > > > > > comparator
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid unwanted
> >> > deserialization.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Pavel
> >> Tupitsyn
> >> > <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of "long, short,
> >> byte"
> >> > in
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > protocol
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style, which is concise
> >> and
> >> > > > > > > unambiguous:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM Igor
> >> Sapego <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support that. Also, if we
> are
> >> > > aiming
> >> > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger platform-independance,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may want to support
> >> > > > > bit-notation
> >> > > > > > > > > (int32,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a different type on
> >> > different
> >> > > > > > > platforms
> >> > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often when using ODBC
> for
> >> > > > example).
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM Pavel
> >> > > Tupitsyn
> >> > > > <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should support unsigned
> >> data
> >> > > > types:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have them, but many
> >> other
> >> > > > > languages
> >> > > > > > > do,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing number of thin
> >> > clients
> >> > > > > this
> >> > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > important.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in current Ignite.NET
> >> > > > > implementation
> >> > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > > > > > store
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain when it
> comes
> >> to
> >> > > > > > metadata,
> >> > > > > > > > > binary
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to deserialize int as
> uint
> >> > when
> >> > > > you
> >> > > > > > > have
> >> > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > class,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM
> >> Andrey
> >> > > > > > Mashenkov <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both serializers use
> >> > > reflection
> >> > > > > > API.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will allow users to
> >> > configure
> >> > > > > > static
> >> > > > > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > along
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still need to
> >> validate
> >> > > user
> >> > > > > > > classes
> >> > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > client
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in the grid  and
> >> > > > reflection
> >> > > > > > API
> >> > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > only
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few articles on the
> >> > > internet
> >> > > > > on
> >> > > > > > > how
> >> > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > enable
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task for supporting
> >> > > GraalVM,
> >> > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > maybe
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > someone
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM will
> suggest a
> >> > > > solution
> >> > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > > > > > proper
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is found, we
> could
> >> > allow
> >> > > > > users
> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > write
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > own
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I don't think it
> is
> >> a
> >> > > good
> >> > > > > idea
> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > expose
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > any
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the public.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM
> >> Denis
> >> > > > Magda <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the update,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the serializers take
> >> into
> >> > > > > > > > consideration
> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native-image-generation feature
> of
> >> > > > GraalVM?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current binary
> >> marshaller,
> >> > we
> >> > > > > can't
> >> > > > > > > even
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > generate
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using our thin
> client
> >> > > APIs.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM
> >> > Andrey
> >> > > > > > > Mashenkov
> >> > > > > > > > <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to continue
> discussion
> >> of
> >> > > > IEP-54
> >> > > > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who is
> interested
> >> > had a
> >> > > > > > chance
> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > get
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to ask
> >> > > > questions
> >> > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > share
> >> > > > > > > > > > > your
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a prototype of
> >> > > serializer
> >> > > > > [2]
> >> > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > data
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I compared 2
> >> approaches
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > (de)serialize
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java reflection/unsafe
> API
> >> and
> >> > > > > similar
> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > one
> >> > > > > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second one generates
> >> > > serializer
> >> > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > > > particular
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > user
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library for
> compilation.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows better
> results
> >> in
> >> > > > > > > benchmarks.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go with it as
> >> > default
> >> > > > > > > serializer
> >> > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation as a fallback
> if
> >> > > someone
> >> > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > > > have
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > issues
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of tasks
> >> under
> >> > the
> >> > > > > > > umbrella
> >> > > > > > > > > > ticket
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to create more
> >> > tickets
> >> > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > manager
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation, but would like
> >> to
> >> > > > clarify
> >> > > > > > > some
> >> > > > > > > > > > > details.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought schemaManager on
> each
> >> > node
> >> > > > > should
> >> > > > > > > > held:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping of "schema
> >> > > version"
> >> > > > > <-->
> >> > > > > > > > > > validated
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > local
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide schema
> changes
> >> > > > history.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client side. Before any
> >> > > > key-value
> >> > > > > > API
> >> > > > > > > > > > > operation
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a given key-value
> >> pair.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no local-mapping
> >> exists
> >> > > > for a
> >> > > > > > > given
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema has a more
> >> > recent
> >> > > > > > version
> >> > > > > > > > > then
> >> > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be validated against
> the
> >> > > latest
> >> > > > > > > version
> >> > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > local
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object doesn't fit to
> the
> >> > > latest
> >> > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > > > > then
> >> > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > depends
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail the
> operation
> >> > > > ('strict'
> >> > > > > > > mode)
> >> > > > > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > new
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a new schema
> version
> >> > > should
> >> > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > > propagated
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server side we usually
> >> have
> >> > no
> >> > > > > > > key-value
> >> > > > > > > > > > > classes
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change history is
> >> > available
> >> > > > > and a
> >> > > > > > > > tuple
> >> > > > > > > > > > has
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to upgrade any
> >> > > received
> >> > > > > > tuple
> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > last
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow nodes to
> >> send
> >> > > > > key-value
> >> > > > > > > > pairs
> >> > > > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't receive a schema
> >> update
> >> > > > yet)
> >> > > > > > > > without
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > reverting
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node with newer
> >> classes.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean
> the
> >> > > same?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> >> > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21
> AM
> >> > Ivan
> >> > > > > > > Pavlukhin
> >> > > > > > > > <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not ignore
> history.
> >> We
> >> > > had
> >> > > > a
> >> > > > > > > thread
> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > many
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can resume it.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00,
> >> Denis
> >> > > > Magda
> >> > > > > <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks
> for
> >> > > > > > explaining.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we need to
> have a
> >> > > > separate
> >> > > > > > > > > > discussion
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms
> substitution.
> >> > I'll
> >> > > > > > > appreciate
> >> > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > > if
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > you
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing pointers to any
> >> > relevant
> >> > > > IEPs
> >> > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > reasoning
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at
> 6:01
> >> PM
> >> > > > > Valentin
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> [hidden email]>
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the wording in
> the
> >> IEP
> >> > > is
> >> > > > a
> >> > > > > > > little
> >> > > > > > > > > bit
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you should not
> create
> >> > > nested
> >> > > > > > POJOs,
> >> > > > > > > > but
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > rather
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO that is
> mapped
> >> to
> >> > a
> >> > > > > > > particular
> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not supported.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this correct?
> >> Please
> >> > > let
> >> > > > me
> >> > > > > > > know
> >> > > > > > > > if
> >> > > > > > > > > > I'm
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > missing
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the "cache" term,
> I
> >> > agree
> >> > > > > that
> >> > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can replace it
> >> with.
> >> > > > "Table"
> >> > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > tightly
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional in our
> >> case.
> >> > Do
> >> > > > you
> >> > > > > > want
> >> > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > create a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at
> >> 4:37 PM
> >> > > > Denis
> >> > > > > > > > Magda <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked the IEP
> again
> >> > and
> >> > > > > have a
> >> > > > > > > few
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > questions.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects
> >> and
> >> > > > > > > collections
> >> > > > > > > > > are
> >> > > > > > > > > > > not
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should
> >> either
> >> > be
> >> > > > > > inlined
> >> > > > > > > > > into
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL
> >> code
> >> > > > > snippet
> >> > > > > > > > > showing
> >> > > > > > > > > > > how
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to work?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep using the
> >> terms
> >> > > > > "cache"
> >> > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right time to
> discuss
> >> an
> >> > > > > > alternate
> >> > > > > > > > name
> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the "table"
> >> > should
> >> > > > stay
> >> > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one of the
> >> > primary
> >> > > > APIs
> >> > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at
> >> 12:26
> >> > PM
> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > [hidden email]>
> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your point. I
> >> agree
> >> > > that
> >> > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > automatic
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last territory.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we
> support
> >> > > > automatic
> >> > > > > > > > > > evolution,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a cache
> without
> >> > > schema
> >> > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > inferring
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other words, we can
> have
> >> > both
> >> > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you
> >> think?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at
> >> 5:59
> >> > > AM
> >> > > > > > Alexey
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> [hidden email]
> >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got
> your
> >> > > concern
> >> > > > > > now.
> >> > > > > > > As
> >> > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > terminology, I am
> >> > > absolutely
> >> > > > > fine
> >> > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the approach best.
> >> > Dynamic
> >> > > or
> >> > > > > > > > evolving
> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > corresponding
> changes
> >> to
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > IEP
> >> > > > > > > once
> >> > > > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > settle
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г.
> в
> >> > > 11:33,
> >> > > > > Ivan
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for your
> >> > > answer!
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My understanding
> is
> >> a
> >> > > > little
> >> > > > > > bit
> >> > > > > > > > > > > different.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > definitely should
> be
> >> > > > > possible.
> >> > > > > > > But
> >> > > > > > > > I
> >> > > > > > > > > > see
> >> > > > > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > main
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is
> updated".
> >> I
> >> > > > treat a
> >> > > > > > > > common
> >> > > > > > > > > > SQL
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data
> >> manipulation
> >> > > > > > operations
> >> > > > > > > > are
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > clearly
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > interesting
> >> > capabilities,
> >> > > > > e.g.
> >> > > > > > > > > > preventing
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data
> >> > operations,
> >> > > > > > > > restricting
> >> > > > > > > > > > > user
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first
> means
> >> > that
> >> > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > > > > exists
> >> > > > > > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is compliant with
> >> it -
> >> > > > that's
> >> > > > > > > > exactly
> >> > > > > > > > > > > what
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last
> >> approach
> >> > > > > > mentioned
> >> > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > also
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is
> >> > > inferred
> >> > > > > from
> >> > > > > > > > data.
> >> > > > > > > > > > Is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing
> approach?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would like
> to
> >> > say,
> >> > > > that
> >> > > > > > my
> >> > > > > > > > main
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > concern
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > terminology. And I
> >> > > suppose
> >> > > > if
> >> > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > > confuses
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > me
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused as well.
> My
> >> > > > feeling
> >> > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > closer
> >> > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > >
> >> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47
> >> > > GMT+03:00,
> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > [hidden email]
> >> > > > > > >:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an
> >> issue
> >> > > with
> >> > > > > > that.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance and all
> >> the
> >> > > > stored
> >> > > > > > data
> >> > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > compliant
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is proposed.
> There
> >> > are
> >> > > no
> >> > > > > > > > > > restrictions
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5,
> >> 2020
> >> > at
> >> > > > 9:52
> >> > > > > > PM
> >> > > > > > > > Ivan
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [hidden email]>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little
> bit
> >> > > > confused
> >> > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1]
> >> (see
> >> > > > part
> >> > > > > X
> >> > > > > > > Semi
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Structured
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic
> >> schema"
> >> > > > > approach
> >> > > > > > > as a
> >> > > > > > > > > > kind
> >> > > > > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > >
> >> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53
> >> > > > GMT+03:00,
> >> > > > > > > Denis
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However,
> could
> >> > you
> >> > > > > please
> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a
> use
> >> > case
> >> > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)?
> >> If
> >> > so,
> >> > > > > what
> >> > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
> >> > > > > > understanding,
> >> > > > > > > > all
> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing
> >> > > > something?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point,
> >> yes,
> >> > if
> >> > > > all
> >> > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > ORM
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > internally,
> >> then
> >> > > they
> >> > > > > can
> >> > > > > > > > easily
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > translate
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE
> >> > > > statement
> >> > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > > > > lists
> >> > > > > > > > > > > all
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data
> >> > > > integration
> >> > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > already
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > based
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be
> improved
> >> > once
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton
> of
> >> > > > usability
> >> > > > > > > > issues.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would
> revise
> >> the
> >> > > > > > Hibernate
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > integration
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't
> >> say
> >> > if
> >> > > > it's
> >> > > > > > > used
> >> > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > > > > > lot
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael
> >> Pollind,
> >> > > I'll
> >> > > > > > loop
> >> > > > > > > > you
> >> > > > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > long
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite
> support
> >> for
> >> > > > > > Micornaut
> >> > > > > > > > > Data
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came across
> >> some
> >> > > > > > challenges.
> >> > > > > > > > > Just
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > watch
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in
> >> Ignite
> >> > > 3.0.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug
> 31,
> >> > 2020
> >> > > > at
> >> > > > > > 5:11
> >> > > > > > > > PM
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally
> >> > > speaking, I
> >> > > > > > > believe
> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses
> the
> >> > issue
> >> > > > if
> >> > > > > > > > > duplicate
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> because
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will
> be
> >> > > > created
> >> > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > > > > > cache,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically,
> the
> >> > > schema
> >> > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > > > > define
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > whether
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which
> >> fields
> >> > > are
> >> > > > > > > included
> >> > > > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > > > case
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be
> >> > > > compliant
> >> > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > > > this,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > so
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as
> with a
> >> > set
> >> > > of
> >> > > > > > > > records,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > rather
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However,
> could
> >> > you
> >> > > > > please
> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a
> use
> >> > case
> >> > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)?
> >> If
> >> > so,
> >> > > > > what
> >> > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
> >> > > > > > understanding,
> >> > > > > > > > all
> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing
> >> > > > something?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug
> >> 31,
> >> > > 2020
> >> > > > at
> >> > > > > > > 2:08
> >> > > > > > > > PM
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [hidden email]>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would
> >> propose
> >> > > > > adding
> >> > > > > > > > > another
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > point
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to
> >> the
> >> > > ORM
> >> > > > > > > > frameworks
> >> > > > > > > > > > > such
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many
> others.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently,
> >> the
> >> > > > > storage
> >> > > > > > > > engine
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requires
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones
> >> that
> >> > > > > > > complicate
> >> > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> (especially
> >> if
> >> > a
> >> > > > key
> >> > > > > > > object
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > comprises
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found
> here:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be
> >> nice
> >> > > if
> >> > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > new
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single
> >> entity
> >> > > > object
> >> > > > > > when
> >> > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > > > comes
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity
> into
> >> a
> >> > key
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > value.
> >> > > > > > > > > > Just
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > want
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the
> >> > essential
> >> > > > > > public
> >> > > > > > > > APIs
> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > single-entity
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do
> you
> >> > > think?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri,
> Aug
> >> 28,
> >> > > > 2020
> >> > > > > at
> >> > > > > > > > 3:50
> >> > > > > > > > > PM
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> Igniters,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of
> the
> >> > big
> >> > > > > > changes
> >> > > > > > > > > > proposed
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >> "schema-first
> >> > > > > > > approach".
> >> > > > > > > > To
> >> > > > > > > > > > add
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this
> >> > > change:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please
> >> take a
> >> > > > look
> >> > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > let
> >> > > > > > > > > me
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > know
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> thoughts,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >> suggestions,
> >> > or
> >> > > > > > > > objections.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > --
> >> > > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

--
Best regards,
Andrey V. Mashenkov

[Andrew Mashenkov]

Hi Igniters.

I've created a PR for Table access API [1].
This is an initial version. So, any suggestions\objections are welcomed.
Please, do not hesitate to write your comments and\or examples to the PR.

Ignite-api module contains API classes, e.g. TableView classes as
projections for a table for different purposes.
Ignite-table contains dummy implementation and Example class explained how
it is supposed to be used.


Also, I'm still waiting for any feedback for Schema configuration public
API PR [2].

[1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/33
[2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2

On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:05 PM Andrey Mashenkov <[hidden email]>
wrote:

>
> I've updated a PR regarding your feedback [1].
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:58 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> I updated the IEP to contain the missing pieces; actually, most of the
>> questions here were covered by the text. Please let me know if there is
>> something still missing or unclear.
>>
>> чт, 31 дек. 2020 г. в 12:48, Alexey Goncharuk <[hidden email]
>> >:
>>
>> > Mikhail and Igniters,
>> >
>> > Thanks for your comments. The questions are reasonable, though I think
>> all
>> > concerns are addressed by the IEP as Val mentioned. I will update the
>> > document according to your questions in the following week or so, so we
>> can
>> > have a constructive discussion further.
>> >
>> > ср, 30 дек. 2020 г. в 11:45, Michael Cherkasov <
>> > [hidden email]>:
>> >
>> >> Hi Val, Andrey,
>> >>
>> >> thank you for clarifying.
>> >>
>> >> I still have a few comments.
>> >>
>> >> 1. one table == one schema. KV vs SQL:
>> >> Looks like all agreed that KV is just a special case of a regular table
>> >> with (blob,blob) schema.
>> >> I worry about the case when the user starts from KV case and later will
>> >> try
>> >> to expand it and try to leverage SQL for the existing KV table it
>> won't be
>> >> able to do so and will require to reload data. which isn't convenient
>> and
>> >> sometimes not even possible. Is it possible to extract a new field from
>> >> (blob, blob) schema and apply index on it?
>> >>
>> >> 2. Could you please also list all ways of schema definition in the
>> IEP? It
>> >> significant change and I bet the main point of this IEP, everyone hates
>> >> QueryEntities, they are difficult to manage and in general, it's very
>> >> confusing to have a data model(schemas) and node/cluster configuration
>> in
>> >> one place.
>> >>
>> >> So there will be SchemaBuilder and SQL to define schemas, but Andrey
>> also
>> >> mentioned annotations.
>> >>
>> >> I personally against configuration via annotations, while it's
>> convenient
>> >> for development, it difficult to manage because different classes can
>> be
>> >> deployed on different clients/servers nodes and it can lead to
>> >> unpredictable results.
>> >>
>> >> 3. IEP doesn't mention field type changes, only drop/add fields. Field
>> >> type
>> >> changes are extremely painful right now(if even possible), so it would
>> be
>> >> nice if some scenarios would be supported(like int8->int16, or
>> >> int8->String).
>> >>
>> >> 4. got it, I thought IEP will have more details about the
>> implementation.
>> >> I've seen Andrey even sent benchmark results for a new serialization,
>> will
>> >> ping him about this.
>> >>
>> >> 5. Thanks for the clarification. I had a wrong understanding of strick
>> >> mode.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> вт, 29 дек. 2020 г. в 19:32, Valentin Kulichenko <
>> >> [hidden email]>:
>> >>
>> >> > Hi Mike,
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks for providing your feedback. Please see my comments below.
>> >> >
>> >> > I would also encourage you to go through the IEP-54 [1] - it has a
>> lot
>> >> of
>> >> > detail on the topic.
>> >> >
>> >> > [1]
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
>> >> >
>> >> > -Val
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:22 PM Michael Cherkasov <
>> >> > [hidden email]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Hi all,
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I reviewed the mail thread and proposal page and I still don't
>> fully
>> >> > > understand what is going to be changed, I would really appreciate
>> it
>> >> if
>> >> > you
>> >> > > will answer a few questions:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > 1. Are you going to leave only one schema per cache? if so, will be
>> >> there
>> >> > > an option to have a table with arbitrary objects(pure KV case)?
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > My opinion is that KV case should be natively supported. I think this
>> >> still
>> >> > needs to be thought over, my current view on this is that we should
>> have
>> >> > separate APIs for KV and more generic storages. KV storage can be
>> >> > implemented as a "table" with two BLOB fields where we will store
>> >> > serialized key-value pairs. That would imply deserialization on read,
>> >> but I
>> >> > believe this is OK for KV use cases. I'm happy to hear other ideas
>> >> though
>> >> > :)
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > > 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0 have to define schema?
>> >> > SchemaBuilder
>> >> > > and SQL only? Is there an option to put the schema definition to
>> the
>> >> > > configuration?(I really don't like this, I would prefer to have
>> >> > > separate scripts to create schemas)
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > There will be no such thing as a static configuration in the first
>> >> place.
>> >> > Tables and schemas are created in runtime. Even if there is a file
>> >> provided
>> >> > on node startup, this file is only applied in the scope of the
>> 'start'
>> >> > operation. All configurations will be stored in a meta storage
>> >> available to
>> >> > all nodes, as opposed to individual files.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > > 3. Is there a way to change field type? if yes, can it be done in
>> >> > runtime?
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > Absolutely! IEP-54 has a whole section about schema evolution.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > > 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going to be re-worked too, is
>> there
>> >> any
>> >> > > IEP for this?
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > BinaryMarshaller as a tool for arbitrary object serialization will be
>> >> gone,
>> >> > but we will reuse a lot of its concept to implement an internal tuple
>> >> > serialization mechanism. IEP-54 has the description of the proposed
>> data
>> >> > format.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > > 5. I don't like automatic schema evaluation when a new field is
>> added
>> >> > > automatically on record put, so is there a way to prohibit this
>> >> behavior?
>> >> > >  I think all schema changes should be done only explicitly except
>> >> initial
>> >> > > schema creation.
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > The way I see it is that we should have two modes: schema-first and
>> >> > schema-last. Schema-first means exactly what you've described -
>> schemas
>> >> are
>> >> > defined and updated explicitly by the user. In the schema-last mode,
>> >> > the user does not deal with schemas, as they are inferred from the
>> data
>> >> > inserted into tables. We should definitely not mix these modes - it
>> has
>> >> to
>> >> > be one or another. And it probably makes sense to discuss which mode
>> >> should
>> >> > be the default one.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Thanks,
>> >> > > Mike.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey Mashenkov <
>> >> > [hidden email]
>> >> > > >:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > Hi, Igniters.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > We all know that the current QueryEntity API is not convenient
>> and
>> >> > needs
>> >> > > to
>> >> > > > be reworked.
>> >> > > > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema configuration public API
>> >> for
>> >> > > > Ignite 3.0.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > New schema configuration uses Builder pattern, which looks more
>> >> > > comfortable
>> >> > > > to use.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package with the API itself,
>> and
>> >> a
>> >> > > draft
>> >> > > > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
>> >> > > > and a test that demonstrates how the API could be used.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Please note:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with static factory
>> methods.
>> >> > > > * The implementation is decoupled and can be easily extracted to
>> >> > separate
>> >> > > > module if we decide to do so.
>> >> > > > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are missed, they will be
>> added
>> >> > > lately
>> >> > > > in separate tickes.
>> >> > > > * Index configuration extends marker interface that makes
>> possible
>> >> to
>> >> > > > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
>> >> > > > Hopfully, we could add a persistent geo-indices support in
>> future.
>> >> > > > * Supposedly, current table schema can be changed via
>> builder-like
>> >> > > > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See
>> >> 'TableModificationBuilder'
>> >> > > for
>> >> > > > details.
>> >> > > > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have 'toBuilder()' converter
>> for
>> >> that
>> >> > > > purpose as it is a Schema Manager responsibility to create
>> mutator
>> >> > > objects
>> >> > > > from the current schema,
>> >> > > > but implementing the Schema manager is out of scope and will be
>> >> > designed
>> >> > > > within the next task.
>> >> > > > * Interfaces implementations are out of scope. I did not intend
>> to
>> >> > merge
>> >> > > > them right now, but for test/demostration purposes.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > It is NOT the final version and some may be changed before the
>> first
>> >> > > > release of course.
>> >> > > > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed with this approach or
>> >> some
>> >> > > > issues should be resolved at first.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Any thoughts or objections?
>> >> > > > Are interfaces good enough to be merged within the current
>> ticket?
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <
>> [hidden email]>
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types:
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
>> >> > > > > 2. It requires adding new types to the internal representation,
>> >> > > protocol,
>> >> > > > > e.t.c.
>> >> > > > > 3. internal representation should be the same as we keep sign
>> >> types.
>> >> > So
>> >> > > > it
>> >> > > > > will not requires more memory
>> >> > > > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such types for platforms
>> >> which
>> >> > not
>> >> > > > > support unsigned types. For example, a user could derive -6
>> value
>> >> in
>> >> > > Java
>> >> > > > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits perspective will be
>> >> right). I
>> >> > > > think
>> >> > > > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such cases, especially it
>> >> will be
>> >> > > bad
>> >> > > > > for unsigned long when we require returns BigInteger type.
>> >> > > > > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix for new types like
>> a
>> >> > > '250u' -
>> >> > > > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
>> >> > > > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive comparison logic for
>> >> > indexes
>> >> > > > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for expressions. I think it
>> >> not
>> >> > > > > possible for the current H2 engine and probably possible for
>> the
>> >> new
>> >> > > > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from anybody who involved in
>> >> this
>> >> > > part
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > WDYT?
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey Goncharuk <
>> >> > > > [hidden email]
>> >> > > > > >:
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0: once we the
>> actual
>> >> > type
>> >> > > > > > information, we can make proper runtime adjustments and
>> >> conversions
>> >> > > to
>> >> > > > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will be just a bit more
>> >> > > expensive.
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <
>> >> [hidden email]
>> >> > >:
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
>> >> > > > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons and so on are
>> >> broken
>> >> > > > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned this somewhere
>> >> > above.
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document that SQL is not
>> >> supported
>> >> > on
>> >> > > > > those
>> >> > > > > > > types,
>> >> > > > > > > end of story.
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
>> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]>
>> >> > > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable request. I thought
>> about
>> >> > this
>> >> > > > > when
>> >> > > > > > I
>> >> > > > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add these types
>> right
>> >> > > away.
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with
>> >> .NET
>> >> > > and
>> >> > > > > C++
>> >> > > > > > :)
>> >> > > > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually works as expected, it
>> >> needs
>> >> > > > some
>> >> > > > > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns are false):
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > >    - It's true that equality check works properly, but
>> for
>> >> SQL
>> >> > > > range
>> >> > > > > > > >    queries it will break unless some special care is
>> taken
>> >> on
>> >> > > Java
>> >> > > > > > side:
>> >> > > > > > > > for
>> >> > > > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will be converted
>> to
>> >> -1,
>> >> > > > which
>> >> > > > > > will
>> >> > > > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we don't have unsigned
>> types
>> >> > now,
>> >> > > I
>> >> > > > > > doubt
>> >> > > > > > > it
>> >> > > > > > > >    works.
>> >> > > > > > > >    - There is an obvious cross-platform data loss when
>> >> > > "intuitive"
>> >> > > > > type
>> >> > > > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8 corresponds to byte
>> type in
>> >> > > .NET,
>> >> > > > > but
>> >> > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have to use short type
>> in
>> >> > Java,
>> >> > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > Ignite
>> >> > > > > > > >    will also need to take care of the range check during
>> >> > > > > > serialization).
>> >> > > > > > > I
>> >> > > > > > > >    think we can even allow to try to deserialize a value
>> >> into
>> >> > > > > arbitrary
>> >> > > > > > > > type,
>> >> > > > > > > >    but throw an exception if the range is out of bounds.
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
>> >> > > > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once all the details
>> >> are
>> >> > > > settled
>> >> > > > > > > here?
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey Mashenkov <
>> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> >> > > > > > > > >:
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't be treated
>> >> correctly
>> >> > > for
>> >> > > > > now
>> >> > > > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > I think we could make "true" support for unsigned
>> types,
>> >> but
>> >> > > they
>> >> > > > > > will
>> >> > > > > > > > have
>> >> > > > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
>> >> > > > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map uint64 to Java
>> long
>> >> > > > > primitive,
>> >> > > > > > > but
>> >> > > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > BigInteger only.
>> >> > > > > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64 to Java long, but
>> >> treat
>> >> > > > > negative
>> >> > > > > > > > > values in a different way to preserve correct ordering.
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > These limitations will affect only mixed environments
>> when
>> >> > .Net
>> >> > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > Java
>> >> > > > > > > > > used to access the data.
>> >> > > > > > > > > Will this solution address your issues?
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
>> >> > > > > [hidden email]
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
>> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning
>> with
>> >> > .NET
>> >> > > > and
>> >> > > > > > C++
>> >> > > > > > > :)
>> >> > > > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as cache keys and
>> >> values,
>> >> > as
>> >> > > > > fields
>> >> > > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > properties,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y clauses) - it
>> >> works
>> >> > > > > > > transparently
>> >> > > > > > > > > for
>> >> > > > > > > > > > the users.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats those values as
>> >> > > > corresponding
>> >> > > > > > > signed
>> >> > > > > > > > > > types.
>> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in some cases only
>> >> because
>> >> > > > there
>> >> > > > > > are
>> >> > > > > > > no
>> >> > > > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very simple change to the
>> >> > > protocol
>> >> > > > -
>> >> > > > > > add
>> >> > > > > > > > type
>> >> > > > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as signed
>> >> counterparts.
>> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise
>> representation
>> >> is
>> >> > > the
>> >> > > > > > same)
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a uByte field
>> and
>> >> map
>> >> > it
>> >> > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > 'uint8'
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > column.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to "250" and put the
>> >> object
>> >> > > > into a
>> >> > > > > > > > table,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a single byte 'int8'
>> >> > column.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it to directly
>> the
>> >> Java
>> >> > > > > object
>> >> > > > > > > > field
>> >> > > > > > > > > of
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8 type to Java
>> >> 'short'
>> >> > > type
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > because the one expected to see "250" as a value
>> which
>> >> > > > doesn't
>> >> > > > > > fit
>> >> > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > signed type.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a BigInteger field in
>> >> Java.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat column value as Java
>> >> 'byte'
>> >> > as
>> >> > > > is,
>> >> > > > > > > > because
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a negative value, so it
>> >> should
>> >> > > be
>> >> > > > > cast
>> >> > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > short
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger for uint64)
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will require a different
>> >> > > comparator.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
>> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a good idea.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the simple approach
>> I
>> >> > > > described?
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrey Mashenkov
>> <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing range for unsigned
>> >> types
>> >> > > > then
>> >> > > > > we
>> >> > > > > > > > could
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > add a
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on schema level
>> >> (like
>> >> > > > > > nullability
>> >> > > > > > > > > flag)
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types in storage.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate storage
>> type-system
>> >> and
>> >> > > > binary
>> >> > > > > > > > > protocol
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of type will match 1
>> to
>> >> 1
>> >> > > with
>> >> > > > > > > storage
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > (native)
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either have a separate
>> type
>> >> id
>> >> > or
>> >> > > > > treat
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > serialized
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed or unsigned
>> >> flag).
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever foresee the
>> >> consequences
>> >> > of
>> >> > > > > using
>> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > types.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned types perfectly
>> >> works
>> >> > > > with
>> >> > > > > > some
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > database,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite successor confession
>> >> with
>> >> > our
>> >> > > > > > > "native"
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he can use the power
>> of
>> >> > Ignite
>> >> > > > > > Compute
>> >> > > > > > > > on
>> >> > > > > > > > > > Java
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either fail to use his
>> >> > unsigned
>> >> > > > data
>> >> > > > > > on
>> >> > > > > > > > Java
>> >> > > > > > > > > > due
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > or
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due to natural Java
>> type
>> >> > system
>> >> > > > > > > > limitations
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > e.g.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively supported types with
>> >> possible
>> >> > > > value
>> >> > > > > > > > ranges
>> >> > > > > > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is what trade-off we
>> found
>> >> > > > > acceptable:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > narrowing
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use types of wider
>> range on
>> >> > > > systems
>> >> > > > > > like
>> >> > > > > > > > > Java.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor Sapego <
>> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so hard to
>> implement
>> >> > > > > comparison
>> >> > > > > > > of
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not seem to be a
>> >> big
>> >> > > issue
>> >> > > > > > from
>> >> > > > > > > my
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned types from Java
>> - I
>> >> > > think,
>> >> > > > > if
>> >> > > > > > a
>> >> > > > > > > > user
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > uses
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to interact with it
>> >> from
>> >> > > Java
>> >> > > > he
>> >> > > > > > > knows
>> >> > > > > > > > > > what
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > he
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from platforms where
>> >> they
>> >> > > have
>> >> > > > > > native
>> >> > > > > > > > > > support
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > widely
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where users
>> currently
>> >> > have
>> >> > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > make a
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > manual
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > casting
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using unsigned types when
>> they
>> >> > use
>> >> > > > > > Ignite.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM Pavel
>> Tupitsyn <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for those types
>> >> > (basically,
>> >> > > > just
>> >> > > > > > add
>> >> > > > > > > > > more
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise
>> >> > > representation
>> >> > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > same)
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned integers,
>> so
>> >> we
>> >> > can
>> >> > > > > > simply
>> >> > > > > > > > say
>> >> > > > > > > > > > that
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative comparison is not
>> >> > supported
>> >> > > > in
>> >> > > > > > SQL
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > (equality
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM Andrey
>> >> Mashenkov
>> >> > <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have i8 or int8
>> >> instead of
>> >> > > > > > Integer.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't address the issue.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types should be portable
>> >> > across
>> >> > > > > > > different
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > systems
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type support.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is that unsigned
>> types
>> >> > cover
>> >> > > > > > > different
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > ranges.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to introduce a
>> uLong.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big deal to add
>> uLong
>> >> > type
>> >> > > > > > support
>> >> > > > > > > > at
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > storage
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and then use it
>> in
>> >> e.g.
>> >> > > > .Net
>> >> > > > > > > only.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support it in e.g. Java?
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range is about
>> >> (2^-63
>> >> > ..
>> >> > > > > 2^63)
>> >> > > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > uLong
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > range
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to restrict range
>> to
>> >> (0
>> >> > ..
>> >> > > > > > 2^63).
>> >> > > > > > > > This
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > allows
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but doesn't look
>> >> like
>> >> > a
>> >> > > > > 'real'
>> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uLong
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse when the user
>> will
>> >> use
>> >> > > > > uByte,
>> >> > > > > > as
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > limitation
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map unsigned
>> types
>> >> to a
>> >> > > > type
>> >> > > > > of
>> >> > > > > > > > wider
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative values. E.g.
>> >> uLong to
>> >> > > > > > > BigInteger.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive Java type for
>> >> Long
>> >> > > here.
>> >> > > > > > > > However,
>> >> > > > > > > > > it
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > still
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8 bytes, but
>> >> have a
>> >> > > > > special
>> >> > > > > > > > > > comparator
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid unwanted
>> >> > deserialization.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Pavel
>> >> Tupitsyn
>> >> > <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of "long, short,
>> >> byte"
>> >> > in
>> >> > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > protocol
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style, which is concise
>> >> and
>> >> > > > > > > unambiguous:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM Igor
>> >> Sapego <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support that. Also, if we
>> are
>> >> > > aiming
>> >> > > > > for
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger platform-independance,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may want to support
>> >> > > > > bit-notation
>> >> > > > > > > > > (int32,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a different type on
>> >> > different
>> >> > > > > > > platforms
>> >> > > > > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often when using ODBC
>> for
>> >> > > > example).
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM Pavel
>> >> > > Tupitsyn
>> >> > > > <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should support unsigned
>> >> data
>> >> > > > types:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have them, but many
>> >> other
>> >> > > > > languages
>> >> > > > > > > do,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing number of thin
>> >> > clients
>> >> > > > > this
>> >> > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > important.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in current Ignite.NET
>> >> > > > > implementation
>> >> > > > > > > we
>> >> > > > > > > > > > store
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain when it
>> comes
>> >> to
>> >> > > > > > metadata,
>> >> > > > > > > > > binary
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to deserialize int as
>> uint
>> >> > when
>> >> > > > you
>> >> > > > > > > have
>> >> > > > > > > > a
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > class,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM
>> >> Andrey
>> >> > > > > > Mashenkov <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both serializers use
>> >> > > reflection
>> >> > > > > > API.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will allow users to
>> >> > configure
>> >> > > > > > static
>> >> > > > > > > > > schema
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > along
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still need to
>> >> validate
>> >> > > user
>> >> > > > > > > classes
>> >> > > > > > > > > on
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > client
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in the grid
>> and
>> >> > > > reflection
>> >> > > > > > API
>> >> > > > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > only
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few articles on
>> the
>> >> > > internet
>> >> > > > > on
>> >> > > > > > > how
>> >> > > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > enable
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task for supporting
>> >> > > GraalVM,
>> >> > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > maybe
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > someone
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM will
>> suggest a
>> >> > > > solution
>> >> > > > > > or
>> >> > > > > > > a
>> >> > > > > > > > > > proper
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is found, we
>> could
>> >> > allow
>> >> > > > > users
>> >> > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > write
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > own
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I don't think it
>> is
>> >> a
>> >> > > good
>> >> > > > > idea
>> >> > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > expose
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > any
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the public.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM
>> >> Denis
>> >> > > > Magda <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the update,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the serializers
>> take
>> >> into
>> >> > > > > > > > consideration
>> >> > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native-image-generation
>> feature of
>> >> > > > GraalVM?
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current binary
>> >> marshaller,
>> >> > we
>> >> > > > > can't
>> >> > > > > > > even
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > generate
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using our thin
>> client
>> >> > > APIs.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM
>> >> > Andrey
>> >> > > > > > > Mashenkov
>> >> > > > > > > > <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to continue
>> discussion
>> >> of
>> >> > > > IEP-54
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who is
>> interested
>> >> > had a
>> >> > > > > > chance
>> >> > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > get
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to
>> ask
>> >> > > > questions
>> >> > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > share
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > your
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a prototype of
>> >> > > serializer
>> >> > > > > [2]
>> >> > > > > > > for
>> >> > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > data
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I compared 2
>> >> approaches
>> >> > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > (de)serialize
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java reflection/unsafe
>> API
>> >> and
>> >> > > > > similar
>> >> > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > one
>> >> > > > > > > > > > we
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second one generates
>> >> > > serializer
>> >> > > > > for
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > particular
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > user
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library for
>> compilation.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows better
>> results
>> >> in
>> >> > > > > > > benchmarks.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go with it as
>> >> > default
>> >> > > > > > > serializer
>> >> > > > > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > have
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation as a fallback
>> if
>> >> > > someone
>> >> > > > > > will
>> >> > > > > > > > have
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > issues
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of tasks
>> >> under
>> >> > the
>> >> > > > > > > umbrella
>> >> > > > > > > > > > ticket
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to create more
>> >> > tickets
>> >> > > > for
>> >> > > > > > > > schema
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > manager
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation, but would
>> like
>> >> to
>> >> > > > clarify
>> >> > > > > > > some
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > details.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought schemaManager on
>> each
>> >> > node
>> >> > > > > should
>> >> > > > > > > > held:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping of "schema
>> >> > > version"
>> >> > > > > <-->
>> >> > > > > > > > > > validated
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > local
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide schema
>> changes
>> >> > > > history.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client side. Before
>> any
>> >> > > > key-value
>> >> > > > > > API
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > operation
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > we
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a given key-value
>> >> pair.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no local-mapping
>> >> exists
>> >> > > > for a
>> >> > > > > > > given
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema has a
>> more
>> >> > recent
>> >> > > > > > version
>> >> > > > > > > > > then
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be validated against
>> the
>> >> > > latest
>> >> > > > > > > version
>> >> > > > > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > local
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object doesn't fit to
>> the
>> >> > > latest
>> >> > > > > > schema
>> >> > > > > > > > > then
>> >> > > > > > > > > > it
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > depends
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail the
>> operation
>> >> > > > ('strict'
>> >> > > > > > > mode)
>> >> > > > > > > > > or
>> >> > > > > > > > > > a
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > new
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a new schema
>> version
>> >> > > should
>> >> > > > > be
>> >> > > > > > > > > > propagated
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server side we usually
>> >> have
>> >> > no
>> >> > > > > > > key-value
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > classes
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change history is
>> >> > available
>> >> > > > > and a
>> >> > > > > > > > tuple
>> >> > > > > > > > > > has
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to upgrade any
>> >> > > received
>> >> > > > > > tuple
>> >> > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > last
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow nodes to
>> >> send
>> >> > > > > key-value
>> >> > > > > > > > pairs
>> >> > > > > > > > > > of
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't receive a schema
>> >> update
>> >> > > > yet)
>> >> > > > > > > > without
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > reverting
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node with newer
>> >> classes.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean
>> the
>> >> > > same?
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > >
>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21
>> AM
>> >> > Ivan
>> >> > > > > > > Pavlukhin
>> >> > > > > > > > <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not ignore
>> history.
>> >> We
>> >> > > had
>> >> > > > a
>> >> > > > > > > thread
>> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > many
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can resume it.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00,
>> >> Denis
>> >> > > > Magda
>> >> > > > > <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks
>> for
>> >> > > > > > explaining.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we need to
>> have a
>> >> > > > separate
>> >> > > > > > > > > > discussion
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms
>> substitution.
>> >> > I'll
>> >> > > > > > > appreciate
>> >> > > > > > > > > it
>> >> > > > > > > > > > if
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > you
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing pointers to any
>> >> > relevant
>> >> > > > IEPs
>> >> > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > reasoning
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at
>> 6:01
>> >> PM
>> >> > > > > Valentin
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> [hidden email]>
>> >> > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the wording in
>> the
>> >> IEP
>> >> > > is
>> >> > > > a
>> >> > > > > > > little
>> >> > > > > > > > > bit
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you should not
>> create
>> >> > > nested
>> >> > > > > > POJOs,
>> >> > > > > > > > but
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > rather
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO that is
>> mapped
>> >> to
>> >> > a
>> >> > > > > > > particular
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > In
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not supported.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this correct?
>> >> Please
>> >> > > let
>> >> > > > me
>> >> > > > > > > know
>> >> > > > > > > > if
>> >> > > > > > > > > > I'm
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > missing
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the "cache"
>> term, I
>> >> > agree
>> >> > > > > that
>> >> > > > > > it
>> >> > > > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can replace it
>> >> with.
>> >> > > > "Table"
>> >> > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > tightly
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional in our
>> >> case.
>> >> > Do
>> >> > > > you
>> >> > > > > > want
>> >> > > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > create a
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at
>> >> 4:37 PM
>> >> > > > Denis
>> >> > > > > > > > Magda <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked the IEP
>> again
>> >> > and
>> >> > > > > have a
>> >> > > > > > > few
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > questions.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested
>> objects
>> >> and
>> >> > > > > > > collections
>> >> > > > > > > > > are
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > not
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should
>> >> either
>> >> > be
>> >> > > > > > inlined
>> >> > > > > > > > > into
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL
>> >> code
>> >> > > > > snippet
>> >> > > > > > > > > showing
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > how
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to work?
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep using the
>> >> terms
>> >> > > > > "cache"
>> >> > > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > "table"
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right time to
>> discuss
>> >> an
>> >> > > > > > alternate
>> >> > > > > > > > name
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the "table"
>> >> > should
>> >> > > > stay
>> >> > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one of the
>> >> > primary
>> >> > > > APIs
>> >> > > > > > in
>> >> > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at
>> >> 12:26
>> >> > PM
>> >> > > > > > > Valentin
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > [hidden email]>
>> >> > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your point. I
>> >> agree
>> >> > > that
>> >> > > > > with
>> >> > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > automatic
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last
>> territory.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we
>> support
>> >> > > > automatic
>> >> > > > > > > > > > evolution,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > we
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a cache
>> without
>> >> > > schema
>> >> > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > inferring
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other words, we can
>> have
>> >> > both
>> >> > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you
>> >> think?
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020
>> at
>> >> 5:59
>> >> > > AM
>> >> > > > > > Alexey
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> >> [hidden email]
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got
>> your
>> >> > > concern
>> >> > > > > > now.
>> >> > > > > > > As
>> >> > > > > > > > > it
>> >> > > > > > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > terminology, I am
>> >> > > absolutely
>> >> > > > > fine
>> >> > > > > > > > with
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > changing
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the approach best.
>> >> > Dynamic
>> >> > > or
>> >> > > > > > > > evolving
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > corresponding
>> changes
>> >> to
>> >> > > the
>> >> > > > > IEP
>> >> > > > > > > once
>> >> > > > > > > > > we
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > settle
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020
>> г. в
>> >> > > 11:33,
>> >> > > > > Ivan
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for
>> your
>> >> > > answer!
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My understanding
>> is
>> >> a
>> >> > > > little
>> >> > > > > > bit
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > different.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > definitely
>> should be
>> >> > > > > possible.
>> >> > > > > > > But
>> >> > > > > > > > I
>> >> > > > > > > > > > see
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > a
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > main
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is
>> updated".
>> >> I
>> >> > > > treat a
>> >> > > > > > > > common
>> >> > > > > > > > > > SQL
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data
>> >> manipulation
>> >> > > > > > operations
>> >> > > > > > > > are
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > clearly
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > interesting
>> >> > capabilities,
>> >> > > > > e.g.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > preventing
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data
>> >> > operations,
>> >> > > > > > > > restricting
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > user
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first
>> means
>> >> > that
>> >> > > > > > schema
>> >> > > > > > > > > exists
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > in
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is compliant with
>> >> it -
>> >> > > > that's
>> >> > > > > > > > exactly
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > what
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last
>> >> approach
>> >> > > > > > mentioned
>> >> > > > > > > in
>> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > also
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is
>> >> > > inferred
>> >> > > > > from
>> >> > > > > > > > data.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > Is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing
>> approach?
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would like
>> to
>> >> > say,
>> >> > > > that
>> >> > > > > > my
>> >> > > > > > > > main
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > concern
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > terminology. And
>> I
>> >> > > suppose
>> >> > > > if
>> >> > > > > > it
>> >> > > > > > > > > > confuses
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > me
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused as
>> well. My
>> >> > > > feeling
>> >> > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > closer
>> >> > > > > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving schema".
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > >
>> >>
>> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47
>> >> > > GMT+03:00,
>> >> > > > > > > Valentin
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> >> > > > > [hidden email]
>> >> > > > > > >:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an
>> >> issue
>> >> > > with
>> >> > > > > > that.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance and all
>> >> the
>> >> > > > stored
>> >> > > > > > data
>> >> > > > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > compliant
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is proposed.
>> There
>> >> > are
>> >> > > no
>> >> > > > > > > > > > restrictions
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5,
>> >> 2020
>> >> > at
>> >> > > > 9:52
>> >> > > > > > PM
>> >> > > > > > > > Ivan
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [hidden email]>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little
>> bit
>> >> > > > confused
>> >> > > > > > > with
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey
>> [1]
>> >> (see
>> >> > > > part
>> >> > > > > X
>> >> > > > > > > Semi
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Structured
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic
>> >> schema"
>> >> > > > > approach
>> >> > > > > > > as a
>> >> > > > > > > > > > kind
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > of
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > >
>> >>
>> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02
>> 1:53
>> >> > > > GMT+03:00,
>> >> > > > > > > Denis
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However,
>> could
>> >> > you
>> >> > > > > please
>> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a
>> use
>> >> > case
>> >> > > > for
>> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so
>> far)?
>> >> If
>> >> > so,
>> >> > > > > what
>> >> > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
>> >> > > > > > understanding,
>> >> > > > > > > > all
>> >> > > > > > > > > > you
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I
>> missing
>> >> > > > something?
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point,
>> >> yes,
>> >> > if
>> >> > > > all
>> >> > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > ORM
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > internally,
>> >> then
>> >> > > they
>> >> > > > > can
>> >> > > > > > > > easily
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > translate
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> INSERT/UPDATE
>> >> > > > statement
>> >> > > > > > that
>> >> > > > > > > > > lists
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > all
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data
>> >> > > > integration
>> >> > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > already
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > based
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be
>> improved
>> >> > once
>> >> > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > schema-first
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton
>> of
>> >> > > > usability
>> >> > > > > > > > issues.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would
>> revise
>> >> the
>> >> > > > > > Hibernate
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > integration
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't
>> >> say
>> >> > if
>> >> > > > it's
>> >> > > > > > > used
>> >> > > > > > > > a
>> >> > > > > > > > > > lot
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > but
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael
>> >> Pollind,
>> >> > > I'll
>> >> > > > > > loop
>> >> > > > > > > > you
>> >> > > > > > > > > in
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > as
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > long
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite
>> support
>> >> for
>> >> > > > > > Micornaut
>> >> > > > > > > > > Data
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came across
>> >> some
>> >> > > > > > challenges.
>> >> > > > > > > > > Just
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > watch
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in
>> >> Ignite
>> >> > > 3.0.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug
>> 31,
>> >> > 2020
>> >> > > > at
>> >> > > > > > 5:11
>> >> > > > > > > > PM
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally
>> >> > > speaking, I
>> >> > > > > > > believe
>> >> > > > > > > > > > that
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses
>> the
>> >> > issue
>> >> > > > if
>> >> > > > > > > > > duplicate
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > fields
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> because
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema
>> will be
>> >> > > > created
>> >> > > > > > for
>> >> > > > > > > a
>> >> > > > > > > > > > cache,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically,
>> the
>> >> > > schema
>> >> > > > > > will
>> >> > > > > > > > > define
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > whether
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which
>> >> fields
>> >> > > are
>> >> > > > > > > included
>> >> > > > > > > > > in
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > case
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must
>> be
>> >> > > > compliant
>> >> > > > > > with
>> >> > > > > > > > > this,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > so
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as
>> with a
>> >> > set
>> >> > > of
>> >> > > > > > > > records,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > rather
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However,
>> could
>> >> > you
>> >> > > > > please
>> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a
>> use
>> >> > case
>> >> > > > for
>> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so
>> far)?
>> >> If
>> >> > so,
>> >> > > > > what
>> >> > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my
>> >> > > > > > understanding,
>> >> > > > > > > > all
>> >> > > > > > > > > > you
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I
>> missing
>> >> > > > something?
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug
>> >> 31,
>> >> > > 2020
>> >> > > > at
>> >> > > > > > > 2:08
>> >> > > > > > > > PM
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > Denis
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [hidden email]>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would
>> >> propose
>> >> > > > > adding
>> >> > > > > > > > > another
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > point
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related
>> to
>> >> the
>> >> > > ORM
>> >> > > > > > > > frameworks
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > such
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many
>> others.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> Presently,
>> >> the
>> >> > > > > storage
>> >> > > > > > > > engine
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requires
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value
>> ones
>> >> that
>> >> > > > > > > complicate
>> >> > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > usage
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> frameworks
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> (especially
>> >> if
>> >> > a
>> >> > > > key
>> >> > > > > > > object
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > comprises
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found
>> here:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will
>> be
>> >> nice
>> >> > > if
>> >> > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > new
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single
>> >> entity
>> >> > > > object
>> >> > > > > > when
>> >> > > > > > > > it
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > comes
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity
>> into
>> >> a
>> >> > key
>> >> > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > value.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > Just
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > want
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the
>> >> > essential
>> >> > > > > > public
>> >> > > > > > > > APIs
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > single-entity
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do
>> you
>> >> > > think?
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri,
>> Aug
>> >> 28,
>> >> > > > 2020
>> >> > > > > at
>> >> > > > > > > > 3:50
>> >> > > > > > > > > PM
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
>> Igniters,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of
>> the
>> >> > big
>> >> > > > > > changes
>> >> > > > > > > > > > proposed
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
>> >> "schema-first
>> >> > > > > > > approach".
>> >> > > > > > > > To
>> >> > > > > > > > > > add
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > more
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for
>> this
>> >> > > change:
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please
>> >> take a
>> >> > > > look
>> >> > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > > let
>> >> > > > > > > > > me
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > know
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
>> thoughts,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
>> >> suggestions,
>> >> > or
>> >> > > > > > > > objections.
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > --
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> >> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > > --
>> >> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> >> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> >> > > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > --
>> >> > > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > --
>> >> > > > Best regards,
>> >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>

--
Best regards,
Andrey V. Mashenkov

[Pavel Tupitsyn]

Andrey,

What about corresponding async APIs, do we add them now or later?

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 8:11 PM Andrey Mashenkov <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi Igniters.
>
> I've created a PR for Table access API [1].
> This is an initial version. So, any suggestions\objections are welcomed.
> Please, do not hesitate to write your comments and\or examples to the PR.
>
> Ignite-api module contains API classes, e.g. TableView classes as
> projections for a table for different purposes.
> Ignite-table contains dummy implementation and Example class explained how
> it is supposed to be used.
>
>
> Also, I'm still waiting for any feedback for Schema configuration public
> API PR [2].
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/33
> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:05 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> [hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > I've updated a PR regarding your feedback [1].
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:58 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Folks,
> >>
> >> I updated the IEP to contain the missing pieces; actually, most of the
> >> questions here were covered by the text. Please let me know if there is
> >> something still missing or unclear.
> >>
> >> чт, 31 дек. 2020 г. в 12:48, Alexey Goncharuk <
> [hidden email]
> >> >:
> >>
> >> > Mikhail and Igniters,
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for your comments. The questions are reasonable, though I think
> >> all
> >> > concerns are addressed by the IEP as Val mentioned. I will update the
> >> > document according to your questions in the following week or so, so
> we
> >> can
> >> > have a constructive discussion further.
> >> >
> >> > ср, 30 дек. 2020 г. в 11:45, Michael Cherkasov <
> >> > [hidden email]>:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi Val, Andrey,
> >> >>
> >> >> thank you for clarifying.
> >> >>
> >> >> I still have a few comments.
> >> >>
> >> >> 1. one table == one schema. KV vs SQL:
> >> >> Looks like all agreed that KV is just a special case of a regular
> table
> >> >> with (blob,blob) schema.
> >> >> I worry about the case when the user starts from KV case and later
> will
> >> >> try
> >> >> to expand it and try to leverage SQL for the existing KV table it
> >> won't be
> >> >> able to do so and will require to reload data. which isn't convenient
> >> and
> >> >> sometimes not even possible. Is it possible to extract a new field
> from
> >> >> (blob, blob) schema and apply index on it?
> >> >>
> >> >> 2. Could you please also list all ways of schema definition in the
> >> IEP? It
> >> >> significant change and I bet the main point of this IEP, everyone
> hates
> >> >> QueryEntities, they are difficult to manage and in general, it's very
> >> >> confusing to have a data model(schemas) and node/cluster
> configuration
> >> in
> >> >> one place.
> >> >>
> >> >> So there will be SchemaBuilder and SQL to define schemas, but Andrey
> >> also
> >> >> mentioned annotations.
> >> >>
> >> >> I personally against configuration via annotations, while it's
> >> convenient
> >> >> for development, it difficult to manage because different classes can
> >> be
> >> >> deployed on different clients/servers nodes and it can lead to
> >> >> unpredictable results.
> >> >>
> >> >> 3. IEP doesn't mention field type changes, only drop/add fields.
> Field
> >> >> type
> >> >> changes are extremely painful right now(if even possible), so it
> would
> >> be
> >> >> nice if some scenarios would be supported(like int8->int16, or
> >> >> int8->String).
> >> >>
> >> >> 4. got it, I thought IEP will have more details about the
> >> implementation.
> >> >> I've seen Andrey even sent benchmark results for a new serialization,
> >> will
> >> >> ping him about this.
> >> >>
> >> >> 5. Thanks for the clarification. I had a wrong understanding of
> strick
> >> >> mode.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> вт, 29 дек. 2020 г. в 19:32, Valentin Kulichenko <
> >> >> [hidden email]>:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Hi Mike,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks for providing your feedback. Please see my comments below.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I would also encourage you to go through the IEP-54 [1] - it has a
> >> lot
> >> >> of
> >> >> > detail on the topic.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > [1]
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> >> >> >
> >> >> > -Val
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:22 PM Michael Cherkasov <
> >> >> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > Hi all,
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > I reviewed the mail thread and proposal page and I still don't
> >> fully
> >> >> > > understand what is going to be changed, I would really appreciate
> >> it
> >> >> if
> >> >> > you
> >> >> > > will answer a few questions:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > 1. Are you going to leave only one schema per cache? if so, will
> be
> >> >> there
> >> >> > > an option to have a table with arbitrary objects(pure KV case)?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > My opinion is that KV case should be natively supported. I think
> this
> >> >> still
> >> >> > needs to be thought over, my current view on this is that we should
> >> have
> >> >> > separate APIs for KV and more generic storages. KV storage can be
> >> >> > implemented as a "table" with two BLOB fields where we will store
> >> >> > serialized key-value pairs. That would imply deserialization on
> read,
> >> >> but I
> >> >> > believe this is OK for KV use cases. I'm happy to hear other ideas
> >> >> though
> >> >> > :)
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0 have to define schema?
> >> >> > SchemaBuilder
> >> >> > > and SQL only? Is there an option to put the schema definition to
> >> the
> >> >> > > configuration?(I really don't like this, I would prefer to have
> >> >> > > separate scripts to create schemas)
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > There will be no such thing as a static configuration in the first
> >> >> place.
> >> >> > Tables and schemas are created in runtime. Even if there is a file
> >> >> provided
> >> >> > on node startup, this file is only applied in the scope of the
> >> 'start'
> >> >> > operation. All configurations will be stored in a meta storage
> >> >> available to
> >> >> > all nodes, as opposed to individual files.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > 3. Is there a way to change field type? if yes, can it be done in
> >> >> > runtime?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Absolutely! IEP-54 has a whole section about schema evolution.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going to be re-worked too, is
> >> there
> >> >> any
> >> >> > > IEP for this?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > BinaryMarshaller as a tool for arbitrary object serialization will
> be
> >> >> gone,
> >> >> > but we will reuse a lot of its concept to implement an internal
> tuple
> >> >> > serialization mechanism. IEP-54 has the description of the proposed
> >> data
> >> >> > format.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > 5. I don't like automatic schema evaluation when a new field is
> >> added
> >> >> > > automatically on record put, so is there a way to prohibit this
> >> >> behavior?
> >> >> > >  I think all schema changes should be done only explicitly except
> >> >> initial
> >> >> > > schema creation.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The way I see it is that we should have two modes: schema-first and
> >> >> > schema-last. Schema-first means exactly what you've described -
> >> schemas
> >> >> are
> >> >> > defined and updated explicitly by the user. In the schema-last
> mode,
> >> >> > the user does not deal with schemas, as they are inferred from the
> >> data
> >> >> > inserted into tables. We should definitely not mix these modes - it
> >> has
> >> >> to
> >> >> > be one or another. And it probably makes sense to discuss which
> mode
> >> >> should
> >> >> > be the default one.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Thanks,
> >> >> > > Mike.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey Mashenkov <
> >> >> > [hidden email]
> >> >> > > >:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > Hi, Igniters.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > We all know that the current QueryEntity API is not convenient
> >> and
> >> >> > needs
> >> >> > > to
> >> >> > > > be reworked.
> >> >> > > > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema configuration public
> API
> >> >> for
> >> >> > > > Ignite 3.0.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > New schema configuration uses Builder pattern, which looks more
> >> >> > > comfortable
> >> >> > > > to use.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package with the API itself,
> >> and
> >> >> a
> >> >> > > draft
> >> >> > > > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
> >> >> > > > and a test that demonstrates how the API could be used.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Please note:
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with static factory
> >> methods.
> >> >> > > > * The implementation is decoupled and can be easily extracted
> to
> >> >> > separate
> >> >> > > > module if we decide to do so.
> >> >> > > > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are missed, they will be
> >> added
> >> >> > > lately
> >> >> > > > in separate tickes.
> >> >> > > > * Index configuration extends marker interface that makes
> >> possible
> >> >> to
> >> >> > > > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
> >> >> > > > Hopfully, we could add a persistent geo-indices support in
> >> future.
> >> >> > > > * Supposedly, current table schema can be changed via
> >> builder-like
> >> >> > > > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See
> >> >> 'TableModificationBuilder'
> >> >> > > for
> >> >> > > > details.
> >> >> > > > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have 'toBuilder()' converter
> >> for
> >> >> that
> >> >> > > > purpose as it is a Schema Manager responsibility to create
> >> mutator
> >> >> > > objects
> >> >> > > > from the current schema,
> >> >> > > > but implementing the Schema manager is out of scope and will be
> >> >> > designed
> >> >> > > > within the next task.
> >> >> > > > * Interfaces implementations are out of scope. I did not intend
> >> to
> >> >> > merge
> >> >> > > > them right now, but for test/demostration purposes.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > It is NOT the final version and some may be changed before the
> >> first
> >> >> > > > release of course.
> >> >> > > > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed with this approach
> or
> >> >> some
> >> >> > > > issues should be resolved at first.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Any thoughts or objections?
> >> >> > > > Are interfaces good enough to be merged within the current
> >> ticket?
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <
> >> [hidden email]>
> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types:
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
> >> >> > > > > 2. It requires adding new types to the internal
> representation,
> >> >> > > protocol,
> >> >> > > > > e.t.c.
> >> >> > > > > 3. internal representation should be the same as we keep sign
> >> >> types.
> >> >> > So
> >> >> > > > it
> >> >> > > > > will not requires more memory
> >> >> > > > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such types for platforms
> >> >> which
> >> >> > not
> >> >> > > > > support unsigned types. For example, a user could derive -6
> >> value
> >> >> in
> >> >> > > Java
> >> >> > > > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits perspective will be
> >> >> right). I
> >> >> > > > think
> >> >> > > > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such cases, especially it
> >> >> will be
> >> >> > > bad
> >> >> > > > > for unsigned long when we require returns BigInteger type.
> >> >> > > > > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix for new types
> like
> >> a
> >> >> > > '250u' -
> >> >> > > > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
> >> >> > > > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive comparison logic
> for
> >> >> > indexes
> >> >> > > > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for expressions. I think
> it
> >> >> not
> >> >> > > > > possible for the current H2 engine and probably possible for
> >> the
> >> >> new
> >> >> > > > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from anybody who involved
> in
> >> >> this
> >> >> > > part
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > WDYT?
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey Goncharuk <
> >> >> > > > [hidden email]
> >> >> > > > > >:
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0: once we the
> >> actual
> >> >> > type
> >> >> > > > > > information, we can make proper runtime adjustments and
> >> >> conversions
> >> >> > > to
> >> >> > > > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will be just a bit more
> >> >> > > expensive.
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> >> >> [hidden email]
> >> >> > >:
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
> >> >> > > > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons and so on are
> >> >> broken
> >> >> > > > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned this
> somewhere
> >> >> > above.
> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document that SQL is not
> >> >> supported
> >> >> > on
> >> >> > > > > those
> >> >> > > > > > > types,
> >> >> > > > > > > end of story.
> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> >> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable request. I thought
> >> about
> >> >> > this
> >> >> > > > > when
> >> >> > > > > > I
> >> >> > > > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add these types
> >> right
> >> >> > > away.
> >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning
> with
> >> >> .NET
> >> >> > > and
> >> >> > > > > C++
> >> >> > > > > > :)
> >> >> > > > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually works as expected,
> it
> >> >> needs
> >> >> > > > some
> >> >> > > > > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns are false):
> >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > >    - It's true that equality check works properly, but
> >> for
> >> >> SQL
> >> >> > > > range
> >> >> > > > > > > >    queries it will break unless some special care is
> >> taken
> >> >> on
> >> >> > > Java
> >> >> > > > > > side:
> >> >> > > > > > > > for
> >> >> > > > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will be converted
> >> to
> >> >> -1,
> >> >> > > > which
> >> >> > > > > > will
> >> >> > > > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we don't have unsigned
> >> types
> >> >> > now,
> >> >> > > I
> >> >> > > > > > doubt
> >> >> > > > > > > it
> >> >> > > > > > > >    works.
> >> >> > > > > > > >    - There is an obvious cross-platform data loss when
> >> >> > > "intuitive"
> >> >> > > > > type
> >> >> > > > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8 corresponds to byte
> >> type in
> >> >> > > .NET,
> >> >> > > > > but
> >> >> > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have to use short
> type
> >> in
> >> >> > Java,
> >> >> > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> >> > > > > > > >    will also need to take care of the range check
> during
> >> >> > > > > > serialization).
> >> >> > > > > > > I
> >> >> > > > > > > >    think we can even allow to try to deserialize a
> value
> >> >> into
> >> >> > > > > arbitrary
> >> >> > > > > > > > type,
> >> >> > > > > > > >    but throw an exception if the range is out of
> bounds.
> >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
> >> >> > > > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once all the
> details
> >> >> are
> >> >> > > > settled
> >> >> > > > > > > here?
> >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey Mashenkov <
> >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> >> >> > > > > > > > >:
> >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't be treated
> >> >> correctly
> >> >> > > for
> >> >> > > > > now
> >> >> > > > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > I think we could make "true" support for unsigned
> >> types,
> >> >> but
> >> >> > > they
> >> >> > > > > > will
> >> >> > > > > > > > have
> >> >> > > > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map uint64 to Java
> >> long
> >> >> > > > > primitive,
> >> >> > > > > > > but
> >> >> > > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > BigInteger only.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64 to Java long,
> but
> >> >> treat
> >> >> > > > > negative
> >> >> > > > > > > > > values in a different way to preserve correct
> ordering.
> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > These limitations will affect only mixed environments
> >> when
> >> >> > .Net
> >> >> > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > Java
> >> >> > > > > > > > > used to access the data.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > Will this solution address your issues?
> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> >> >> > > > > [hidden email]
> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning
> >> with
> >> >> > .NET
> >> >> > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > C++
> >> >> > > > > > > :)
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as cache keys and
> >> >> values,
> >> >> > as
> >> >> > > > > fields
> >> >> > > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > properties,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y clauses) - it
> >> >> works
> >> >> > > > > > > transparently
> >> >> > > > > > > > > for
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > the users.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats those values as
> >> >> > > > corresponding
> >> >> > > > > > > signed
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > types.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in some cases only
> >> >> because
> >> >> > > > there
> >> >> > > > > > are
> >> >> > > > > > > no
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very simple change to
> the
> >> >> > > protocol
> >> >> > > > -
> >> >> > > > > > add
> >> >> > > > > > > > type
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as signed
> >> >> counterparts.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise
> >> representation
> >> >> is
> >> >> > > the
> >> >> > > > > > same)
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a uByte field
> >> and
> >> >> map
> >> >> > it
> >> >> > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > 'uint8'
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > column.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to "250" and put the
> >> >> object
> >> >> > > > into a
> >> >> > > > > > > > table,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a single byte
> 'int8'
> >> >> > column.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it to directly
> >> the
> >> >> Java
> >> >> > > > > object
> >> >> > > > > > > > field
> >> >> > > > > > > > > of
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8 type to Java
> >> >> 'short'
> >> >> > > type
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > because the one expected to see "250" as a value
> >> which
> >> >> > > > doesn't
> >> >> > > > > > fit
> >> >> > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > signed type.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a BigInteger field in
> >> >> Java.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat column value as Java
> >> >> 'byte'
> >> >> > as
> >> >> > > > is,
> >> >> > > > > > > > because
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a negative value, so
> it
> >> >> should
> >> >> > > be
> >> >> > > > > cast
> >> >> > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > short
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger for uint64)
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will require a different
> >> >> > > comparator.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a good idea.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the simple
> approach
> >> I
> >> >> > > > described?
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrey
> Mashenkov
> >> <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing range for
> unsigned
> >> >> types
> >> >> > > > then
> >> >> > > > > we
> >> >> > > > > > > > could
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > add a
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on schema level
> >> >> (like
> >> >> > > > > > nullability
> >> >> > > > > > > > > flag)
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types in storage.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate storage
> >> type-system
> >> >> and
> >> >> > > > binary
> >> >> > > > > > > > > protocol
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of type will match
> 1
> >> to
> >> >> 1
> >> >> > > with
> >> >> > > > > > > storage
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (native)
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either have a separate
> >> type
> >> >> id
> >> >> > or
> >> >> > > > > treat
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > serialized
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed or unsigned
> >> >> flag).
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever foresee the
> >> >> consequences
> >> >> > of
> >> >> > > > > using
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > types.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned types
> perfectly
> >> >> works
> >> >> > > > with
> >> >> > > > > > some
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > database,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite successor
> confession
> >> >> with
> >> >> > our
> >> >> > > > > > > "native"
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he can use the power
> >> of
> >> >> > Ignite
> >> >> > > > > > Compute
> >> >> > > > > > > > on
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either fail to use his
> >> >> > unsigned
> >> >> > > > data
> >> >> > > > > > on
> >> >> > > > > > > > Java
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > due
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due to natural Java
> >> type
> >> >> > system
> >> >> > > > > > > > limitations
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > e.g.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively supported types with
> >> >> possible
> >> >> > > > value
> >> >> > > > > > > > ranges
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is what trade-off we
> >> found
> >> >> > > > > acceptable:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > narrowing
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use types of wider
> >> range on
> >> >> > > > systems
> >> >> > > > > > like
> >> >> > > > > > > > > Java.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor Sapego <
> >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so hard to
> >> implement
> >> >> > > > > comparison
> >> >> > > > > > > of
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not seem to
> be a
> >> >> big
> >> >> > > issue
> >> >> > > > > > from
> >> >> > > > > > > my
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned types from
> Java
> >> - I
> >> >> > > think,
> >> >> > > > > if
> >> >> > > > > > a
> >> >> > > > > > > > user
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > uses
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to interact with
> it
> >> >> from
> >> >> > > Java
> >> >> > > > he
> >> >> > > > > > > knows
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > what
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > he
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from platforms
> where
> >> >> they
> >> >> > > have
> >> >> > > > > > native
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > support
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > widely
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where users
> >> currently
> >> >> > have
> >> >> > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > make a
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > manual
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > casting
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using unsigned types when
> >> they
> >> >> > use
> >> >> > > > > > Ignite.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM Pavel
> >> Tupitsyn <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for those types
> >> >> > (basically,
> >> >> > > > just
> >> >> > > > > > add
> >> >> > > > > > > > > more
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise
> >> >> > > representation
> >> >> > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > same)
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned integers,
> >> so
> >> >> we
> >> >> > can
> >> >> > > > > > simply
> >> >> > > > > > > > say
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative comparison is not
> >> >> > supported
> >> >> > > > in
> >> >> > > > > > SQL
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (equality
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM Andrey
> >> >> Mashenkov
> >> >> > <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have i8 or int8
> >> >> instead of
> >> >> > > > > > Integer.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't address the
> issue.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types should be
> portable
> >> >> > across
> >> >> > > > > > > different
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > systems
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type support.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is that unsigned
> >> types
> >> >> > cover
> >> >> > > > > > > different
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > ranges.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to introduce a
> >> uLong.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big deal to add
> >> uLong
> >> >> > type
> >> >> > > > > > support
> >> >> > > > > > > > at
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > storage
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and then use it
> >> in
> >> >> e.g.
> >> >> > > > .Net
> >> >> > > > > > > only.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support it in e.g.
> Java?
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range is about
> >> >> (2^-63
> >> >> > ..
> >> >> > > > > 2^63)
> >> >> > > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > uLong
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > range
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to restrict
> range
> >> to
> >> >> (0
> >> >> > ..
> >> >> > > > > > 2^63).
> >> >> > > > > > > > This
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but doesn't
> look
> >> >> like
> >> >> > a
> >> >> > > > > 'real'
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uLong
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse when the user
> >> will
> >> >> use
> >> >> > > > > uByte,
> >> >> > > > > > as
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > limitation
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map unsigned
> >> types
> >> >> to a
> >> >> > > > type
> >> >> > > > > of
> >> >> > > > > > > > wider
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative values. E.g.
> >> >> uLong to
> >> >> > > > > > > BigInteger.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive Java type
> for
> >> >> Long
> >> >> > > here.
> >> >> > > > > > > > However,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > still
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8 bytes, but
> >> >> have a
> >> >> > > > > special
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > comparator
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid unwanted
> >> >> > deserialization.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Pavel
> >> >> Tupitsyn
> >> >> > <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of "long, short,
> >> >> byte"
> >> >> > in
> >> >> > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > protocol
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style, which is
> concise
> >> >> and
> >> >> > > > > > > unambiguous:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM Igor
> >> >> Sapego <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support that. Also, if we
> >> are
> >> >> > > aiming
> >> >> > > > > for
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger platform-independance,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may want to
> support
> >> >> > > > > bit-notation
> >> >> > > > > > > > > (int32,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a different type on
> >> >> > different
> >> >> > > > > > > platforms
> >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often when using ODBC
> >> for
> >> >> > > > example).
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM
> Pavel
> >> >> > > Tupitsyn
> >> >> > > > <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should support
> unsigned
> >> >> data
> >> >> > > > types:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have them, but many
> >> >> other
> >> >> > > > > languages
> >> >> > > > > > > do,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing number of
> thin
> >> >> > clients
> >> >> > > > > this
> >> >> > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > important.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in current
> Ignite.NET
> >> >> > > > > implementation
> >> >> > > > > > > we
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > store
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain when it
> >> comes
> >> >> to
> >> >> > > > > > metadata,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > binary
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to deserialize int as
> >> uint
> >> >> > when
> >> >> > > > you
> >> >> > > > > > > have
> >> >> > > > > > > > a
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > class,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM
> >> >> Andrey
> >> >> > > > > > Mashenkov <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both serializers
> use
> >> >> > > reflection
> >> >> > > > > > API.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will allow users to
> >> >> > configure
> >> >> > > > > > static
> >> >> > > > > > > > > schema
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > along
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still need to
> >> >> validate
> >> >> > > user
> >> >> > > > > > > classes
> >> >> > > > > > > > > on
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > client
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in the grid
> >> and
> >> >> > > > reflection
> >> >> > > > > > API
> >> >> > > > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > only
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few articles on
> >> the
> >> >> > > internet
> >> >> > > > > on
> >> >> > > > > > > how
> >> >> > > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > enable
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task for
> supporting
> >> >> > > GraalVM,
> >> >> > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > maybe
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > someone
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM will
> >> suggest a
> >> >> > > > solution
> >> >> > > > > > or
> >> >> > > > > > > a
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > proper
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is found, we
> >> could
> >> >> > allow
> >> >> > > > > users
> >> >> > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > write
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > own
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I don't think
> it
> >> is
> >> >> a
> >> >> > > good
> >> >> > > > > idea
> >> >> > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > expose
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > any
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the public.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM
> >> >> Denis
> >> >> > > > Magda <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the
> update,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the serializers
> >> take
> >> >> into
> >> >> > > > > > > > consideration
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native-image-generation
> >> feature of
> >> >> > > > GraalVM?
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current binary
> >> >> marshaller,
> >> >> > we
> >> >> > > > > can't
> >> >> > > > > > > even
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > generate
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using our thin
> >> client
> >> >> > > APIs.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39
> AM
> >> >> > Andrey
> >> >> > > > > > > Mashenkov
> >> >> > > > > > > > <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to continue
> >> discussion
> >> >> of
> >> >> > > > IEP-54
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who is
> >> interested
> >> >> > had a
> >> >> > > > > > chance
> >> >> > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > get
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to
> >> ask
> >> >> > > > questions
> >> >> > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > share
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > your
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a prototype
> of
> >> >> > > serializer
> >> >> > > > > [2]
> >> >> > > > > > > for
> >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > data
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I compared 2
> >> >> approaches
> >> >> > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > (de)serialize
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java reflection/unsafe
> >> API
> >> >> and
> >> >> > > > > similar
> >> >> > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > one
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > we
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second one
> generates
> >> >> > > serializer
> >> >> > > > > for
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > particular
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > user
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library for
> >> compilation.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows better
> >> results
> >> >> in
> >> >> > > > > > > benchmarks.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go with it
> as
> >> >> > default
> >> >> > > > > > > serializer
> >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation as a
> fallback
> >> if
> >> >> > > someone
> >> >> > > > > > will
> >> >> > > > > > > > have
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > issues
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of tasks
> >> >> under
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > > > > > > umbrella
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > ticket
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to create
> more
> >> >> > tickets
> >> >> > > > for
> >> >> > > > > > > > schema
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > manager
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation, but would
> >> like
> >> >> to
> >> >> > > > clarify
> >> >> > > > > > > some
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > details.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought schemaManager on
> >> each
> >> >> > node
> >> >> > > > > should
> >> >> > > > > > > > held:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping of
> "schema
> >> >> > > version"
> >> >> > > > > <-->
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > validated
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > local
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide schema
> >> changes
> >> >> > > > history.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client side. Before
> >> any
> >> >> > > > key-value
> >> >> > > > > > API
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > operation
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a given
> key-value
> >> >> pair.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no
> local-mapping
> >> >> exists
> >> >> > > > for a
> >> >> > > > > > > given
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema has a
> >> more
> >> >> > recent
> >> >> > > > > > version
> >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be validated against
> >> the
> >> >> > > latest
> >> >> > > > > > > version
> >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > local
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object doesn't fit to
> >> the
> >> >> > > latest
> >> >> > > > > > schema
> >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > it
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > depends
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail the
> >> operation
> >> >> > > > ('strict'
> >> >> > > > > > > mode)
> >> >> > > > > > > > > or
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > a
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > new
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a new schema
> >> version
> >> >> > > should
> >> >> > > > > be
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > propagated
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server side we
> usually
> >> >> have
> >> >> > no
> >> >> > > > > > > key-value
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > classes
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change history is
> >> >> > available
> >> >> > > > > and a
> >> >> > > > > > > > tuple
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > has
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to upgrade
> any
> >> >> > > received
> >> >> > > > > > tuple
> >> >> > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > last
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow nodes
> to
> >> >> send
> >> >> > > > > key-value
> >> >> > > > > > > > pairs
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > of
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't receive a
> schema
> >> >> update
> >> >> > > > yet)
> >> >> > > > > > > > without
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > reverting
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node with newer
> >> >> classes.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you
> mean
> >> the
> >> >> > > same?
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at
> 9:21
> >> AM
> >> >> > Ivan
> >> >> > > > > > > Pavlukhin
> >> >> > > > > > > > <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not ignore
> >> history.
> >> >> We
> >> >> > > had
> >> >> > > > a
> >> >> > > > > > > thread
> >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > many
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can resume it.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08
> GMT+03:00,
> >> >> Denis
> >> >> > > > Magda
> >> >> > > > > <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense,
> thanks
> >> for
> >> >> > > > > > explaining.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we need to
> >> have a
> >> >> > > > separate
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > discussion
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms
> >> substitution.
> >> >> > I'll
> >> >> > > > > > > appreciate
> >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > if
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > you
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing pointers to any
> >> >> > relevant
> >> >> > > > IEPs
> >> >> > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > reasoning
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at
> >> 6:01
> >> >> PM
> >> >> > > > > Valentin
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> [hidden email]>
> >> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the wording in
> >> the
> >> >> IEP
> >> >> > > is
> >> >> > > > a
> >> >> > > > > > > little
> >> >> > > > > > > > > bit
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you should not
> >> create
> >> >> > > nested
> >> >> > > > > > POJOs,
> >> >> > > > > > > > but
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > rather
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO that is
> >> mapped
> >> >> to
> >> >> > a
> >> >> > > > > > > particular
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not
> supported.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this correct?
> >> >> Please
> >> >> > > let
> >> >> > > > me
> >> >> > > > > > > know
> >> >> > > > > > > > if
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > I'm
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > missing
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the "cache"
> >> term, I
> >> >> > agree
> >> >> > > > > that
> >> >> > > > > > it
> >> >> > > > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can replace it
> >> >> with.
> >> >> > > > "Table"
> >> >> > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > tightly
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional in our
> >> >> case.
> >> >> > Do
> >> >> > > > you
> >> >> > > > > > want
> >> >> > > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > create a
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at
> >> >> 4:37 PM
> >> >> > > > Denis
> >> >> > > > > > > > Magda <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked the IEP
> >> again
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > > > > have a
> >> >> > > > > > > few
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > questions.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested
> >> objects
> >> >> and
> >> >> > > > > > > collections
> >> >> > > > > > > > > are
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > not
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should
> >> >> either
> >> >> > be
> >> >> > > > > > inlined
> >> >> > > > > > > > > into
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you provide a
> DDL
> >> >> code
> >> >> > > > > snippet
> >> >> > > > > > > > > showing
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > how
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to work?
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep using
> the
> >> >> terms
> >> >> > > > > "cache"
> >> >> > > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right time to
> >> discuss
> >> >> an
> >> >> > > > > > alternate
> >> >> > > > > > > > name
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the
> "table"
> >> >> > should
> >> >> > > > stay
> >> >> > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one of
> the
> >> >> > primary
> >> >> > > > APIs
> >> >> > > > > > in
> >> >> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020
> at
> >> >> 12:26
> >> >> > PM
> >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> >> > [hidden email]>
> >> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your point. I
> >> >> agree
> >> >> > > that
> >> >> > > > > with
> >> >> > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > automatic
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last
> >> territory.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we
> >> support
> >> >> > > > automatic
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > evolution,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a cache
> >> without
> >> >> > > schema
> >> >> > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > inferring
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other words, we can
> >> have
> >> >> > both
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you
> >> >> think?
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020
> >> at
> >> >> 5:59
> >> >> > > AM
> >> >> > > > > > Alexey
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> >> [hidden email]
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got
> >> your
> >> >> > > concern
> >> >> > > > > > now.
> >> >> > > > > > > As
> >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > terminology, I am
> >> >> > > absolutely
> >> >> > > > > fine
> >> >> > > > > > > > with
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the approach
> best.
> >> >> > Dynamic
> >> >> > > or
> >> >> > > > > > > > evolving
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > corresponding
> >> changes
> >> >> to
> >> >> > > the
> >> >> > > > > IEP
> >> >> > > > > > > once
> >> >> > > > > > > > > we
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > settle
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020
> >> г. в
> >> >> > > 11:33,
> >> >> > > > > Ivan
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for
> >> your
> >> >> > > answer!
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My
> understanding
> >> is
> >> >> a
> >> >> > > > little
> >> >> > > > > > bit
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > different.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > definitely
> >> should be
> >> >> > > > > possible.
> >> >> > > > > > > But
> >> >> > > > > > > > I
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > see
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > a
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > main
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is
> >> updated".
> >> >> I
> >> >> > > > treat a
> >> >> > > > > > > > common
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > SQL
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data
> >> >> manipulation
> >> >> > > > > > operations
> >> >> > > > > > > > are
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > clearly
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > interesting
> >> >> > capabilities,
> >> >> > > > > e.g.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > preventing
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data
> >> >> > operations,
> >> >> > > > > > > > restricting
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > user
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first
> >> means
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > > > > > schema
> >> >> > > > > > > > > exists
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > in
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is compliant
> with
> >> >> it -
> >> >> > > > that's
> >> >> > > > > > > > exactly
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > what
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last
> >> >> approach
> >> >> > > > > > mentioned
> >> >> > > > > > > in
> >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > also
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but it
> is
> >> >> > > inferred
> >> >> > > > > from
> >> >> > > > > > > > data.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > Is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing
> >> approach?
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would
> like
> >> to
> >> >> > say,
> >> >> > > > that
> >> >> > > > > > my
> >> >> > > > > > > > main
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > concern
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > terminology.
> And
> >> I
> >> >> > > suppose
> >> >> > > > if
> >> >> > > > > > it
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > confuses
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > me
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused as
> >> well. My
> >> >> > > > feeling
> >> >> > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > closer
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving
> schema".
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >>
> >> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47
> >> >> > > GMT+03:00,
> >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >> > > > > [hidden email]
> >> >> > > > > > >:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see
> an
> >> >> issue
> >> >> > > with
> >> >> > > > > > that.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance and
> all
> >> >> the
> >> >> > > > stored
> >> >> > > > > > data
> >> >> > > > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > compliant
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is proposed.
> >> There
> >> >> > are
> >> >> > > no
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > restrictions
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep
> 5,
> >> >> 2020
> >> >> > at
> >> >> > > > 9:52
> >> >> > > > > > PM
> >> >> > > > > > > > Ivan
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [hidden email]>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a
> little
> >> bit
> >> >> > > > confused
> >> >> > > > > > > with
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey
> >> [1]
> >> >> (see
> >> >> > > > part
> >> >> > > > > X
> >> >> > > > > > > Semi
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Structured
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic
> >> >> schema"
> >> >> > > > > approach
> >> >> > > > > > > as a
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > kind
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > of
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >>
> >> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02
> >> 1:53
> >> >> > > > GMT+03:00,
> >> >> > > > > > > Denis
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However,
> >> could
> >> >> > you
> >> >> > > > > please
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there
> a
> >> use
> >> >> > case
> >> >> > > > for
> >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so
> >> far)?
> >> >> If
> >> >> > so,
> >> >> > > > > what
> >> >> > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In
> my
> >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> >> >> > > > > > > > all
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I
> >> missing
> >> >> > > > something?
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good
> point,
> >> >> yes,
> >> >> > if
> >> >> > > > all
> >> >> > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > ORM
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> internally,
> >> >> then
> >> >> > > they
> >> >> > > > > can
> >> >> > > > > > > > easily
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > translate
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> INSERT/UPDATE
> >> >> > > > statement
> >> >> > > > > > that
> >> >> > > > > > > > > lists
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > all
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring
> Data
> >> >> > > > integration
> >> >> > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > already
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > based
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be
> >> improved
> >> >> > once
> >> >> > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a
> ton
> >> of
> >> >> > > > usability
> >> >> > > > > > > > issues.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would
> >> revise
> >> >> the
> >> >> > > > > > Hibernate
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > integration
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase.
> Can't
> >> >> say
> >> >> > if
> >> >> > > > it's
> >> >> > > > > > > used
> >> >> > > > > > > > a
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > lot
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael
> >> >> Pollind,
> >> >> > > I'll
> >> >> > > > > > loop
> >> >> > > > > > > > you
> >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > long
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite
> >> support
> >> >> for
> >> >> > > > > > Micornaut
> >> >> > > > > > > > > Data
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came
> across
> >> >> some
> >> >> > > > > > challenges.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > Just
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > watch
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in
> >> >> Ignite
> >> >> > > 3.0.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon,
> Aug
> >> 31,
> >> >> > 2020
> >> >> > > > at
> >> >> > > > > > 5:11
> >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally
> >> >> > > speaking, I
> >> >> > > > > > > believe
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses
> >> the
> >> >> > issue
> >> >> > > > if
> >> >> > > > > > > > > duplicate
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> because
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema
> >> will be
> >> >> > > > created
> >> >> > > > > > for
> >> >> > > > > > > a
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > cache,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> Basically,
> >> the
> >> >> > > schema
> >> >> > > > > > will
> >> >> > > > > > > > > define
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > whether
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which
> >> >> fields
> >> >> > > are
> >> >> > > > > > > included
> >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > case
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must
> >> be
> >> >> > > > compliant
> >> >> > > > > > with
> >> >> > > > > > > > > this,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > so
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as
> >> with a
> >> >> > set
> >> >> > > of
> >> >> > > > > > > > records,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > rather
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However,
> >> could
> >> >> > you
> >> >> > > > > please
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there
> a
> >> use
> >> >> > case
> >> >> > > > for
> >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so
> >> far)?
> >> >> If
> >> >> > so,
> >> >> > > > > what
> >> >> > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In
> my
> >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> >> >> > > > > > > > all
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I
> >> missing
> >> >> > > > something?
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon,
> Aug
> >> >> 31,
> >> >> > > 2020
> >> >> > > > at
> >> >> > > > > > > 2:08
> >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [hidden email]>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would
> >> >> propose
> >> >> > > > > adding
> >> >> > > > > > > > > another
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > point
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related
> >> to
> >> >> the
> >> >> > > ORM
> >> >> > > > > > > > frameworks
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > such
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many
> >> others.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> Presently,
> >> >> the
> >> >> > > > > storage
> >> >> > > > > > > > engine
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requires
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value
> >> ones
> >> >> that
> >> >> > > > > > > complicate
> >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> frameworks
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> (especially
> >> >> if
> >> >> > a
> >> >> > > > key
> >> >> > > > > > > object
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > comprises
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found
> >> here:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will
> >> be
> >> >> nice
> >> >> > > if
> >> >> > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > new
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single
> >> >> entity
> >> >> > > > object
> >> >> > > > > > when
> >> >> > > > > > > > it
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > comes
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity
> >> into
> >> >> a
> >> >> > key
> >> >> > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > value.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > Just
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > want
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the
> >> >> > essential
> >> >> > > > > > public
> >> >> > > > > > > > APIs
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > single-entity
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> approach.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do
> >> you
> >> >> > > think?
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri,
> >> Aug
> >> >> 28,
> >> >> > > > 2020
> >> >> > > > > at
> >> >> > > > > > > > 3:50
> >> >> > > > > > > > > PM
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >> Igniters,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One
> of
> >> the
> >> >> > big
> >> >> > > > > > changes
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > proposed
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >> >> "schema-first
> >> >> > > > > > > approach".
> >> >> > > > > > > > To
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > add
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> started
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for
> >> this
> >> >> > > change:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> Please
> >> >> take a
> >> >> > > > look
> >> >> > > > > > and
> >> >> > > > > > > > let
> >> >> > > > > > > > > me
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > know
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >> thoughts,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >> >> suggestions,
> >> >> > or
> >> >> > > > > > > > objections.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best
> regards,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan
> Pavlukhin
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > > > --
> >> >> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> >> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > --
> >> >> > > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > --
> >> >> > > > Best regards,
> >> >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>

[Andrew Mashenkov]

Pavel, good point.
Thanks. I've added async methods.

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 2:29 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Andrey,
>
> What about corresponding async APIs, do we add them now or later?
>
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 8:11 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> [hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Igniters.
> >
> > I've created a PR for Table access API [1].
> > This is an initial version. So, any suggestions\objections are welcomed.
> > Please, do not hesitate to write your comments and\or examples to the PR.
> >
> > Ignite-api module contains API classes, e.g. TableView classes as
> > projections for a table for different purposes.
> > Ignite-table contains dummy implementation and Example class explained
> how
> > it is supposed to be used.
> >
> >
> > Also, I'm still waiting for any feedback for Schema configuration public
> > API PR [2].
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/33
> > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:05 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I've updated a PR regarding your feedback [1].
> > >
> > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:58 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Folks,
> > >>
> > >> I updated the IEP to contain the missing pieces; actually, most of the
> > >> questions here were covered by the text. Please let me know if there
> is
> > >> something still missing or unclear.
> > >>
> > >> чт, 31 дек. 2020 г. в 12:48, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > [hidden email]
> > >> >:
> > >>
> > >> > Mikhail and Igniters,
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks for your comments. The questions are reasonable, though I
> think
> > >> all
> > >> > concerns are addressed by the IEP as Val mentioned. I will update
> the
> > >> > document according to your questions in the following week or so, so
> > we
> > >> can
> > >> > have a constructive discussion further.
> > >> >
> > >> > ср, 30 дек. 2020 г. в 11:45, Michael Cherkasov <
> > >> > [hidden email]>:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Hi Val, Andrey,
> > >> >>
> > >> >> thank you for clarifying.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I still have a few comments.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> 1. one table == one schema. KV vs SQL:
> > >> >> Looks like all agreed that KV is just a special case of a regular
> > table
> > >> >> with (blob,blob) schema.
> > >> >> I worry about the case when the user starts from KV case and later
> > will
> > >> >> try
> > >> >> to expand it and try to leverage SQL for the existing KV table it
> > >> won't be
> > >> >> able to do so and will require to reload data. which isn't
> convenient
> > >> and
> > >> >> sometimes not even possible. Is it possible to extract a new field
> > from
> > >> >> (blob, blob) schema and apply index on it?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> 2. Could you please also list all ways of schema definition in the
> > >> IEP? It
> > >> >> significant change and I bet the main point of this IEP, everyone
> > hates
> > >> >> QueryEntities, they are difficult to manage and in general, it's
> very
> > >> >> confusing to have a data model(schemas) and node/cluster
> > configuration
> > >> in
> > >> >> one place.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> So there will be SchemaBuilder and SQL to define schemas, but
> Andrey
> > >> also
> > >> >> mentioned annotations.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I personally against configuration via annotations, while it's
> > >> convenient
> > >> >> for development, it difficult to manage because different classes
> can
> > >> be
> > >> >> deployed on different clients/servers nodes and it can lead to
> > >> >> unpredictable results.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> 3. IEP doesn't mention field type changes, only drop/add fields.
> > Field
> > >> >> type
> > >> >> changes are extremely painful right now(if even possible), so it
> > would
> > >> be
> > >> >> nice if some scenarios would be supported(like int8->int16, or
> > >> >> int8->String).
> > >> >>
> > >> >> 4. got it, I thought IEP will have more details about the
> > >> implementation.
> > >> >> I've seen Andrey even sent benchmark results for a new
> serialization,
> > >> will
> > >> >> ping him about this.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> 5. Thanks for the clarification. I had a wrong understanding of
> > strick
> > >> >> mode.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> вт, 29 дек. 2020 г. в 19:32, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > >> >> [hidden email]>:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > Hi Mike,
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Thanks for providing your feedback. Please see my comments below.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > I would also encourage you to go through the IEP-54 [1] - it has
> a
> > >> lot
> > >> >> of
> > >> >> > detail on the topic.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > [1]
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > -Val
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:22 PM Michael Cherkasov <
> > >> >> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > Hi all,
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > I reviewed the mail thread and proposal page and I still don't
> > >> fully
> > >> >> > > understand what is going to be changed, I would really
> appreciate
> > >> it
> > >> >> if
> > >> >> > you
> > >> >> > > will answer a few questions:
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > 1. Are you going to leave only one schema per cache? if so,
> will
> > be
> > >> >> there
> > >> >> > > an option to have a table with arbitrary objects(pure KV case)?
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > My opinion is that KV case should be natively supported. I think
> > this
> > >> >> still
> > >> >> > needs to be thought over, my current view on this is that we
> should
> > >> have
> > >> >> > separate APIs for KV and more generic storages. KV storage can be
> > >> >> > implemented as a "table" with two BLOB fields where we will store
> > >> >> > serialized key-value pairs. That would imply deserialization on
> > read,
> > >> >> but I
> > >> >> > believe this is OK for KV use cases. I'm happy to hear other
> ideas
> > >> >> though
> > >> >> > :)
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0 have to define schema?
> > >> >> > SchemaBuilder
> > >> >> > > and SQL only? Is there an option to put the schema definition
> to
> > >> the
> > >> >> > > configuration?(I really don't like this, I would prefer to have
> > >> >> > > separate scripts to create schemas)
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > There will be no such thing as a static configuration in the
> first
> > >> >> place.
> > >> >> > Tables and schemas are created in runtime. Even if there is a
> file
> > >> >> provided
> > >> >> > on node startup, this file is only applied in the scope of the
> > >> 'start'
> > >> >> > operation. All configurations will be stored in a meta storage
> > >> >> available to
> > >> >> > all nodes, as opposed to individual files.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > 3. Is there a way to change field type? if yes, can it be done
> in
> > >> >> > runtime?
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Absolutely! IEP-54 has a whole section about schema evolution.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going to be re-worked too, is
> > >> there
> > >> >> any
> > >> >> > > IEP for this?
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > BinaryMarshaller as a tool for arbitrary object serialization
> will
> > be
> > >> >> gone,
> > >> >> > but we will reuse a lot of its concept to implement an internal
> > tuple
> > >> >> > serialization mechanism. IEP-54 has the description of the
> proposed
> > >> data
> > >> >> > format.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > 5. I don't like automatic schema evaluation when a new field is
> > >> added
> > >> >> > > automatically on record put, so is there a way to prohibit this
> > >> >> behavior?
> > >> >> > >  I think all schema changes should be done only explicitly
> except
> > >> >> initial
> > >> >> > > schema creation.
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > The way I see it is that we should have two modes: schema-first
> and
> > >> >> > schema-last. Schema-first means exactly what you've described -
> > >> schemas
> > >> >> are
> > >> >> > defined and updated explicitly by the user. In the schema-last
> > mode,
> > >> >> > the user does not deal with schemas, as they are inferred from
> the
> > >> data
> > >> >> > inserted into tables. We should definitely not mix these modes -
> it
> > >> has
> > >> >> to
> > >> >> > be one or another. And it probably makes sense to discuss which
> > mode
> > >> >> should
> > >> >> > be the default one.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > Thanks,
> > >> >> > > Mike.
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > >> >> > [hidden email]
> > >> >> > > >:
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > > Hi, Igniters.
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > We all know that the current QueryEntity API is not
> convenient
> > >> and
> > >> >> > needs
> > >> >> > > to
> > >> >> > > > be reworked.
> > >> >> > > > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema configuration public
> > API
> > >> >> for
> > >> >> > > > Ignite 3.0.
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > New schema configuration uses Builder pattern, which looks
> more
> > >> >> > > comfortable
> > >> >> > > > to use.
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package with the API
> itself,
> > >> and
> > >> >> a
> > >> >> > > draft
> > >> >> > > > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
> > >> >> > > > and a test that demonstrates how the API could be used.
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > Please note:
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with static factory
> > >> methods.
> > >> >> > > > * The implementation is decoupled and can be easily extracted
> > to
> > >> >> > separate
> > >> >> > > > module if we decide to do so.
> > >> >> > > > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are missed, they will
> be
> > >> added
> > >> >> > > lately
> > >> >> > > > in separate tickes.
> > >> >> > > > * Index configuration extends marker interface that makes
> > >> possible
> > >> >> to
> > >> >> > > > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
> > >> >> > > > Hopfully, we could add a persistent geo-indices support in
> > >> future.
> > >> >> > > > * Supposedly, current table schema can be changed via
> > >> builder-like
> > >> >> > > > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See
> > >> >> 'TableModificationBuilder'
> > >> >> > > for
> > >> >> > > > details.
> > >> >> > > > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have 'toBuilder()'
> converter
> > >> for
> > >> >> that
> > >> >> > > > purpose as it is a Schema Manager responsibility to create
> > >> mutator
> > >> >> > > objects
> > >> >> > > > from the current schema,
> > >> >> > > > but implementing the Schema manager is out of scope and will
> be
> > >> >> > designed
> > >> >> > > > within the next task.
> > >> >> > > > * Interfaces implementations are out of scope. I did not
> intend
> > >> to
> > >> >> > merge
> > >> >> > > > them right now, but for test/demostration purposes.
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > It is NOT the final version and some may be changed before
> the
> > >> first
> > >> >> > > > release of course.
> > >> >> > > > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed with this
> approach
> > or
> > >> >> some
> > >> >> > > > issues should be resolved at first.
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > Any thoughts or objections?
> > >> >> > > > Are interfaces good enough to be merged within the current
> > >> ticket?
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <
> > >> [hidden email]>
> > >> >> > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types:
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
> > >> >> > > > > 2. It requires adding new types to the internal
> > representation,
> > >> >> > > protocol,
> > >> >> > > > > e.t.c.
> > >> >> > > > > 3. internal representation should be the same as we keep
> sign
> > >> >> types.
> > >> >> > So
> > >> >> > > > it
> > >> >> > > > > will not requires more memory
> > >> >> > > > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such types for
> platforms
> > >> >> which
> > >> >> > not
> > >> >> > > > > support unsigned types. For example, a user could derive -6
> > >> value
> > >> >> in
> > >> >> > > Java
> > >> >> > > > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits perspective will be
> > >> >> right). I
> > >> >> > > > think
> > >> >> > > > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such cases, especially
> it
> > >> >> will be
> > >> >> > > bad
> > >> >> > > > > for unsigned long when we require returns BigInteger type.
> > >> >> > > > > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix for new types
> > like
> > >> a
> > >> >> > > '250u' -
> > >> >> > > > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
> > >> >> > > > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive comparison logic
> > for
> > >> >> > indexes
> > >> >> > > > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for expressions. I
> think
> > it
> > >> >> not
> > >> >> > > > > possible for the current H2 engine and probably possible
> for
> > >> the
> > >> >> new
> > >> >> > > > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from anybody who
> involved
> > in
> > >> >> this
> > >> >> > > part
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > WDYT?
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > >> >> > > > [hidden email]
> > >> >> > > > > >:
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0: once we the
> > >> actual
> > >> >> > type
> > >> >> > > > > > information, we can make proper runtime adjustments and
> > >> >> conversions
> > >> >> > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will be just a bit
> more
> > >> >> > > expensive.
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > >> >> [hidden email]
> > >> >> > >:
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
> > >> >> > > > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
> > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons and so on
> are
> > >> >> broken
> > >> >> > > > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned this
> > somewhere
> > >> >> > above.
> > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document that SQL is not
> > >> >> supported
> > >> >> > on
> > >> >> > > > > those
> > >> >> > > > > > > types,
> > >> >> > > > > > > end of story.
> > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > >> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable request. I
> thought
> > >> about
> > >> >> > this
> > >> >> > > > > when
> > >> >> > > > > > I
> > >> >> > > > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add these
> types
> > >> right
> > >> >> > > away.
> > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning
> > with
> > >> >> .NET
> > >> >> > > and
> > >> >> > > > > C++
> > >> >> > > > > > :)
> > >> >> > > > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually works as
> expected,
> > it
> > >> >> needs
> > >> >> > > > some
> > >> >> > > > > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns are false):
> > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > >    - It's true that equality check works properly,
> but
> > >> for
> > >> >> SQL
> > >> >> > > > range
> > >> >> > > > > > > >    queries it will break unless some special care is
> > >> taken
> > >> >> on
> > >> >> > > Java
> > >> >> > > > > > side:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > for
> > >> >> > > > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will be
> converted
> > >> to
> > >> >> -1,
> > >> >> > > > which
> > >> >> > > > > > will
> > >> >> > > > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we don't have unsigned
> > >> types
> > >> >> > now,
> > >> >> > > I
> > >> >> > > > > > doubt
> > >> >> > > > > > > it
> > >> >> > > > > > > >    works.
> > >> >> > > > > > > >    - There is an obvious cross-platform data loss
> when
> > >> >> > > "intuitive"
> > >> >> > > > > type
> > >> >> > > > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8 corresponds to byte
> > >> type in
> > >> >> > > .NET,
> > >> >> > > > > but
> > >> >> > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have to use short
> > type
> > >> in
> > >> >> > Java,
> > >> >> > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> >> > > > > > > >    will also need to take care of the range check
> > during
> > >> >> > > > > > serialization).
> > >> >> > > > > > > I
> > >> >> > > > > > > >    think we can even allow to try to deserialize a
> > value
> > >> >> into
> > >> >> > > > > arbitrary
> > >> >> > > > > > > > type,
> > >> >> > > > > > > >    but throw an exception if the range is out of
> > bounds.
> > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once all the
> > details
> > >> >> are
> > >> >> > > > settled
> > >> >> > > > > > > here?
> > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >:
> > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't be treated
> > >> >> correctly
> > >> >> > > for
> > >> >> > > > > now
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > I think we could make "true" support for unsigned
> > >> types,
> > >> >> but
> > >> >> > > they
> > >> >> > > > > > will
> > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map uint64 to
> Java
> > >> long
> > >> >> > > > > primitive,
> > >> >> > > > > > > but
> > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > BigInteger only.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64 to Java long,
> > but
> > >> >> treat
> > >> >> > > > > negative
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > values in a different way to preserve correct
> > ordering.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > These limitations will affect only mixed
> environments
> > >> when
> > >> >> > .Net
> > >> >> > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > Java
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > used to access the data.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > Will this solution address your issues?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > >> >> > > > > [hidden email]
> > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the
> beginning
> > >> with
> > >> >> > .NET
> > >> >> > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > C++
> > >> >> > > > > > > :)
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as cache keys and
> > >> >> values,
> > >> >> > as
> > >> >> > > > > fields
> > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > properties,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y clauses) -
> it
> > >> >> works
> > >> >> > > > > > > transparently
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > for
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the users.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats those values
> as
> > >> >> > > > corresponding
> > >> >> > > > > > > signed
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > types.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in some cases
> only
> > >> >> because
> > >> >> > > > there
> > >> >> > > > > > are
> > >> >> > > > > > > no
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very simple change to
> > the
> > >> >> > > protocol
> > >> >> > > > -
> > >> >> > > > > > add
> > >> >> > > > > > > > type
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as signed
> > >> >> counterparts.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov
> <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise
> > >> representation
> > >> >> is
> > >> >> > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > same)
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a uByte
> field
> > >> and
> > >> >> map
> > >> >> > it
> > >> >> > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > 'uint8'
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > column.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to "250" and put
> the
> > >> >> object
> > >> >> > > > into a
> > >> >> > > > > > > > table,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a single byte
> > 'int8'
> > >> >> > column.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it to
> directly
> > >> the
> > >> >> Java
> > >> >> > > > > object
> > >> >> > > > > > > > field
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > of
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8 type to
> Java
> > >> >> 'short'
> > >> >> > > type
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > because the one expected to see "250" as a
> value
> > >> which
> > >> >> > > > doesn't
> > >> >> > > > > > fit
> > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > signed type.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a BigInteger field
> in
> > >> >> Java.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat column value as
> Java
> > >> >> 'byte'
> > >> >> > as
> > >> >> > > > is,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > because
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a negative value, so
> > it
> > >> >> should
> > >> >> > > be
> > >> >> > > > > cast
> > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > short
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger for uint64)
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will require a
> different
> > >> >> > > comparator.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel Tupitsyn
> <
> > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a good idea.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the simple
> > approach
> > >> I
> > >> >> > > > described?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrey
> > Mashenkov
> > >> <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing range for
> > unsigned
> > >> >> types
> > >> >> > > > then
> > >> >> > > > > we
> > >> >> > > > > > > > could
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > add a
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on schema
> level
> > >> >> (like
> > >> >> > > > > > nullability
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > flag)
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types in storage.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate storage
> > >> type-system
> > >> >> and
> > >> >> > > > binary
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > protocol
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of type will
> match
> > 1
> > >> to
> > >> >> 1
> > >> >> > > with
> > >> >> > > > > > > storage
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (native)
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either have a
> separate
> > >> type
> > >> >> id
> > >> >> > or
> > >> >> > > > > treat
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > serialized
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed or
> unsigned
> > >> >> flag).
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever foresee the
> > >> >> consequences
> > >> >> > of
> > >> >> > > > > using
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > types.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned types
> > perfectly
> > >> >> works
> > >> >> > > > with
> > >> >> > > > > > some
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > database,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite successor
> > confession
> > >> >> with
> > >> >> > our
> > >> >> > > > > > > "native"
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he can use the
> power
> > >> of
> > >> >> > Ignite
> > >> >> > > > > > Compute
> > >> >> > > > > > > > on
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either fail to use
> his
> > >> >> > unsigned
> > >> >> > > > data
> > >> >> > > > > > on
> > >> >> > > > > > > > Java
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > due
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due to natural Java
> > >> type
> > >> >> > system
> > >> >> > > > > > > > limitations
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > e.g.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively supported types
> with
> > >> >> possible
> > >> >> > > > value
> > >> >> > > > > > > > ranges
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is what trade-off we
> > >> found
> > >> >> > > > > acceptable:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > narrowing
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use types of wider
> > >> range on
> > >> >> > > > systems
> > >> >> > > > > > like
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > Java.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor
> Sapego <
> > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so hard to
> > >> implement
> > >> >> > > > > comparison
> > >> >> > > > > > > of
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not seem to
> > be a
> > >> >> big
> > >> >> > > issue
> > >> >> > > > > > from
> > >> >> > > > > > > my
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned types from
> > Java
> > >> - I
> > >> >> > > think,
> > >> >> > > > > if
> > >> >> > > > > > a
> > >> >> > > > > > > > user
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to interact with
> > it
> > >> >> from
> > >> >> > > Java
> > >> >> > > > he
> > >> >> > > > > > > knows
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > what
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > he
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from platforms
> > where
> > >> >> they
> > >> >> > > have
> > >> >> > > > > > native
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > support
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > widely
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where users
> > >> currently
> > >> >> > have
> > >> >> > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > make a
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > manual
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > casting
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using unsigned types
> when
> > >> they
> > >> >> > use
> > >> >> > > > > > Ignite.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM Pavel
> > >> Tupitsyn <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for those types
> > >> >> > (basically,
> > >> >> > > > just
> > >> >> > > > > > add
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > more
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise
> > >> >> > > representation
> > >> >> > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > same)
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned
> integers,
> > >> so
> > >> >> we
> > >> >> > can
> > >> >> > > > > > simply
> > >> >> > > > > > > > say
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative comparison is
> not
> > >> >> > supported
> > >> >> > > > in
> > >> >> > > > > > SQL
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (equality
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM Andrey
> > >> >> Mashenkov
> > >> >> > <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have i8 or int8
> > >> >> instead of
> > >> >> > > > > > Integer.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't address the
> > issue.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types should be
> > portable
> > >> >> > across
> > >> >> > > > > > > different
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > systems
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type support.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is that unsigned
> > >> types
> > >> >> > cover
> > >> >> > > > > > > different
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > ranges.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to introduce a
> > >> uLong.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big deal to
> add
> > >> uLong
> > >> >> > type
> > >> >> > > > > > support
> > >> >> > > > > > > > at
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > storage
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and then use
> it
> > >> in
> > >> >> e.g.
> > >> >> > > > .Net
> > >> >> > > > > > > only.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support it in e.g.
> > Java?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range is
> about
> > >> >> (2^-63
> > >> >> > ..
> > >> >> > > > > 2^63)
> > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > range
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to restrict
> > range
> > >> to
> > >> >> (0
> > >> >> > ..
> > >> >> > > > > > 2^63).
> > >> >> > > > > > > > This
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but doesn't
> > look
> > >> >> like
> > >> >> > a
> > >> >> > > > > 'real'
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse when the
> user
> > >> will
> > >> >> use
> > >> >> > > > > uByte,
> > >> >> > > > > > as
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > limitation
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map unsigned
> > >> types
> > >> >> to a
> > >> >> > > > type
> > >> >> > > > > of
> > >> >> > > > > > > > wider
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative values.
> E.g.
> > >> >> uLong to
> > >> >> > > > > > > BigInteger.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive Java type
> > for
> > >> >> Long
> > >> >> > > here.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > However,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > still
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8 bytes,
> but
> > >> >> have a
> > >> >> > > > > special
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > comparator
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid unwanted
> > >> >> > deserialization.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Pavel
> > >> >> Tupitsyn
> > >> >> > <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of "long,
> short,
> > >> >> byte"
> > >> >> > in
> > >> >> > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > protocol
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style, which is
> > concise
> > >> >> and
> > >> >> > > > > > > unambiguous:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM
> Igor
> > >> >> Sapego <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support that. Also, if
> we
> > >> are
> > >> >> > > aiming
> > >> >> > > > > for
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger platform-independance,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may want to
> > support
> > >> >> > > > > bit-notation
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > (int32,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a different type
> on
> > >> >> > different
> > >> >> > > > > > > platforms
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often when using
> ODBC
> > >> for
> > >> >> > > > example).
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM
> > Pavel
> > >> >> > > Tupitsyn
> > >> >> > > > <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should support
> > unsigned
> > >> >> data
> > >> >> > > > types:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have them, but
> many
> > >> >> other
> > >> >> > > > > languages
> > >> >> > > > > > > do,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing number of
> > thin
> > >> >> > clients
> > >> >> > > > > this
> > >> >> > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > important.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in current
> > Ignite.NET
> > >> >> > > > > implementation
> > >> >> > > > > > > we
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > store
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain when it
> > >> comes
> > >> >> to
> > >> >> > > > > > metadata,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > binary
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to deserialize int
> as
> > >> uint
> > >> >> > when
> > >> >> > > > you
> > >> >> > > > > > > have
> > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > class,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28
> PM
> > >> >> Andrey
> > >> >> > > > > > Mashenkov <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both serializers
> > use
> > >> >> > > reflection
> > >> >> > > > > > API.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will allow users
> to
> > >> >> > configure
> > >> >> > > > > > static
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > schema
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > along
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still need to
> > >> >> validate
> > >> >> > > user
> > >> >> > > > > > > classes
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > on
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > client
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in the grid
> > >> and
> > >> >> > > > reflection
> > >> >> > > > > > API
> > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few articles
> on
> > >> the
> > >> >> > > internet
> > >> >> > > > > on
> > >> >> > > > > > > how
> > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > enable
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task for
> > supporting
> > >> >> > > GraalVM,
> > >> >> > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > maybe
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > someone
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM will
> > >> suggest a
> > >> >> > > > solution
> > >> >> > > > > > or
> > >> >> > > > > > > a
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proper
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is found, we
> > >> could
> > >> >> > allow
> > >> >> > > > > users
> > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > write
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > own
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I don't think
> > it
> > >> is
> > >> >> a
> > >> >> > > good
> > >> >> > > > > idea
> > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > expose
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the public.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55
> AM
> > >> >> Denis
> > >> >> > > > Magda <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the
> > update,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the serializers
> > >> take
> > >> >> into
> > >> >> > > > > > > > consideration
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native-image-generation
> > >> feature of
> > >> >> > > > GraalVM?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current binary
> > >> >> marshaller,
> > >> >> > we
> > >> >> > > > > can't
> > >> >> > > > > > > even
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > generate
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using our thin
> > >> client
> > >> >> > > APIs.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at
> 4:39
> > AM
> > >> >> > Andrey
> > >> >> > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to continue
> > >> discussion
> > >> >> of
> > >> >> > > > IEP-54
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who is
> > >> interested
> > >> >> > had a
> > >> >> > > > > > chance
> > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > get
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not hesitate
> to
> > >> ask
> > >> >> > > > questions
> > >> >> > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > share
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > your
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a prototype
> > of
> > >> >> > > serializer
> > >> >> > > > > [2]
> > >> >> > > > > > > for
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > data
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I compared 2
> > >> >> approaches
> > >> >> > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > (de)serialize
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java
> reflection/unsafe
> > >> API
> > >> >> and
> > >> >> > > > > similar
> > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > one
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > we
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second one
> > generates
> > >> >> > > serializer
> > >> >> > > > > for
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > particular
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > user
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library for
> > >> compilation.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows better
> > >> results
> > >> >> in
> > >> >> > > > > > > benchmarks.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go with it
> > as
> > >> >> > default
> > >> >> > > > > > > serializer
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation as a
> > fallback
> > >> if
> > >> >> > > someone
> > >> >> > > > > > will
> > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > issues
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of
> tasks
> > >> >> under
> > >> >> > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > umbrella
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ticket
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to create
> > more
> > >> >> > tickets
> > >> >> > > > for
> > >> >> > > > > > > > schema
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > manager
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation, but would
> > >> like
> > >> >> to
> > >> >> > > > clarify
> > >> >> > > > > > > some
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > details.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought schemaManager
> on
> > >> each
> > >> >> > node
> > >> >> > > > > should
> > >> >> > > > > > > > held:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping of
> > "schema
> > >> >> > > version"
> > >> >> > > > > <-->
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > validated
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide schema
> > >> changes
> > >> >> > > > history.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client side.
> Before
> > >> any
> > >> >> > > > key-value
> > >> >> > > > > > API
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > operation
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a given
> > key-value
> > >> >> pair.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no
> > local-mapping
> > >> >> exists
> > >> >> > > > for a
> > >> >> > > > > > > given
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema has a
> > >> more
> > >> >> > recent
> > >> >> > > > > > version
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be validated
> against
> > >> the
> > >> >> > > latest
> > >> >> > > > > > > version
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object doesn't fit
> to
> > >> the
> > >> >> > > latest
> > >> >> > > > > > schema
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > depends
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail the
> > >> operation
> > >> >> > > > ('strict'
> > >> >> > > > > > > mode)
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > or
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > a
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a new schema
> > >> version
> > >> >> > > should
> > >> >> > > > > be
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > propagated
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server side we
> > usually
> > >> >> have
> > >> >> > no
> > >> >> > > > > > > key-value
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > classes
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change history
> is
> > >> >> > available
> > >> >> > > > > and a
> > >> >> > > > > > > > tuple
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > has
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to upgrade
> > any
> > >> >> > > received
> > >> >> > > > > > tuple
> > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > last
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow nodes
> > to
> > >> >> send
> > >> >> > > > > key-value
> > >> >> > > > > > > > pairs
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > of
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't receive a
> > schema
> > >> >> update
> > >> >> > > > yet)
> > >> >> > > > > > > > without
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > reverting
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node with newer
> > >> >> classes.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you
> > mean
> > >> the
> > >> >> > > same?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at
> > 9:21
> > >> AM
> > >> >> > Ivan
> > >> >> > > > > > > Pavlukhin
> > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not ignore
> > >> history.
> > >> >> We
> > >> >> > > had
> > >> >> > > > a
> > >> >> > > > > > > thread
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > many
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can resume
> it.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >>
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08
> > GMT+03:00,
> > >> >> Denis
> > >> >> > > > Magda
> > >> >> > > > > <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense,
> > thanks
> > >> for
> > >> >> > > > > > explaining.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we need to
> > >> have a
> > >> >> > > > separate
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms
> > >> substitution.
> > >> >> > I'll
> > >> >> > > > > > > appreciate
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > if
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing pointers to
> any
> > >> >> > relevant
> > >> >> > > > IEPs
> > >> >> > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > reasoning
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020
> at
> > >> 6:01
> > >> >> PM
> > >> >> > > > > Valentin
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> [hidden email]>
> > >> >> > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the wording
> in
> > >> the
> > >> >> IEP
> > >> >> > > is
> > >> >> > > > a
> > >> >> > > > > > > little
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > bit
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you should not
> > >> create
> > >> >> > > nested
> > >> >> > > > > > POJOs,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > but
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO that is
> > >> mapped
> > >> >> to
> > >> >> > a
> > >> >> > > > > > > particular
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not
> > supported.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this
> correct?
> > >> >> Please
> > >> >> > > let
> > >> >> > > > me
> > >> >> > > > > > > know
> > >> >> > > > > > > > if
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > missing
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the "cache"
> > >> term, I
> > >> >> > agree
> > >> >> > > > > that
> > >> >> > > > > > it
> > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can replace
> it
> > >> >> with.
> > >> >> > > > "Table"
> > >> >> > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > tightly
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional in
> our
> > >> >> case.
> > >> >> > Do
> > >> >> > > > you
> > >> >> > > > > > want
> > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > create a
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020
> at
> > >> >> 4:37 PM
> > >> >> > > > Denis
> > >> >> > > > > > > > Magda <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked the
> IEP
> > >> again
> > >> >> > and
> > >> >> > > > > have a
> > >> >> > > > > > > few
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > questions.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested
> > >> objects
> > >> >> and
> > >> >> > > > > > > collections
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > are
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs
> should
> > >> >> either
> > >> >> > be
> > >> >> > > > > > inlined
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > into
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you provide a
> > DDL
> > >> >> code
> > >> >> > > > > snippet
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > showing
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > how
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to work?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep using
> > the
> > >> >> terms
> > >> >> > > > > "cache"
> > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right time to
> > >> discuss
> > >> >> an
> > >> >> > > > > > alternate
> > >> >> > > > > > > > name
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the
> > "table"
> > >> >> > should
> > >> >> > > > stay
> > >> >> > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one of
> > the
> > >> >> > primary
> > >> >> > > > APIs
> > >> >> > > > > > in
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020
> > at
> > >> >> 12:26
> > >> >> > PM
> > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > [hidden email]>
> > >> >> > > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your
> point. I
> > >> >> agree
> > >> >> > > that
> > >> >> > > > > with
> > >> >> > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > automatic
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last
> > >> territory.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we
> > >> support
> > >> >> > > > automatic
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > evolution,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a cache
> > >> without
> > >> >> > > schema
> > >> >> > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > inferring
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other words, we
> can
> > >> have
> > >> >> > both
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do
> you
> > >> >> think?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7,
> 2020
> > >> at
> > >> >> 5:59
> > >> >> > > AM
> > >> >> > > > > > Alexey
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> [hidden email]
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I
> got
> > >> your
> > >> >> > > concern
> > >> >> > > > > > now.
> > >> >> > > > > > > As
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > terminology, I
> am
> > >> >> > > absolutely
> > >> >> > > > > fine
> > >> >> > > > > > > > with
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the approach
> > best.
> > >> >> > Dynamic
> > >> >> > > or
> > >> >> > > > > > > > evolving
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > corresponding
> > >> changes
> > >> >> to
> > >> >> > > the
> > >> >> > > > > IEP
> > >> >> > > > > > > once
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > we
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > settle
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент.
> 2020
> > >> г. в
> > >> >> > > 11:33,
> > >> >> > > > > Ivan
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for
> > >> your
> > >> >> > > answer!
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My
> > understanding
> > >> is
> > >> >> a
> > >> >> > > > little
> > >> >> > > > > > bit
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > different.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > definitely
> > >> should be
> > >> >> > > > > possible.
> > >> >> > > > > > > But
> > >> >> > > > > > > > I
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > see
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > main
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is
> > >> updated".
> > >> >> I
> > >> >> > > > treat a
> > >> >> > > > > > > > common
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data
> > >> >> manipulation
> > >> >> > > > > > operations
> > >> >> > > > > > > > are
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > clearly
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > interesting
> > >> >> > capabilities,
> > >> >> > > > > e.g.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > preventing
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data
> > >> >> > operations,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > restricting
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > user
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> Schema-first
> > >> means
> > >> >> > that
> > >> >> > > > > > schema
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > exists
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is compliant
> > with
> > >> >> it -
> > >> >> > > > that's
> > >> >> > > > > > > > exactly
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > what
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last
> > >> >> approach
> > >> >> > > > > > mentioned
> > >> >> > > > > > > in
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > also
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but
> it
> > is
> > >> >> > > inferred
> > >> >> > > > > from
> > >> >> > > > > > > > data.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing
> > >> approach?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would
> > like
> > >> to
> > >> >> > say,
> > >> >> > > > that
> > >> >> > > > > > my
> > >> >> > > > > > > > main
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > concern
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > terminology.
> > And
> > >> I
> > >> >> > > suppose
> > >> >> > > > if
> > >> >> > > > > > it
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > confuses
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused as
> > >> well. My
> > >> >> > > > feeling
> > >> >> > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > closer
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving
> > schema".
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >>
> > >>
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07
> 0:47
> > >> >> > > GMT+03:00,
> > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > [hidden email]
> > >> >> > > > > > >:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see
> > an
> > >> >> issue
> > >> >> > > with
> > >> >> > > > > > that.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance and
> > all
> > >> >> the
> > >> >> > > > stored
> > >> >> > > > > > data
> > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > compliant
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is
> proposed.
> > >> There
> > >> >> > are
> > >> >> > > no
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > restrictions
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep
> > 5,
> > >> >> 2020
> > >> >> > at
> > >> >> > > > 9:52
> > >> >> > > > > > PM
> > >> >> > > > > > > > Ivan
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> [hidden email]>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a
> > little
> > >> bit
> > >> >> > > > confused
> > >> >> > > > > > > with
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a
> survey
> > >> [1]
> > >> >> (see
> > >> >> > > > part
> > >> >> > > > > X
> > >> >> > > > > > > Semi
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Structured
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic
> > >> >> schema"
> > >> >> > > > > approach
> > >> >> > > > > > > as a
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > kind
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >>
> > >>
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02
> > >> 1:53
> > >> >> > > > GMT+03:00,
> > >> >> > > > > > > Denis
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> However,
> > >> could
> > >> >> > you
> > >> >> > > > > please
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is
> there
> > a
> > >> use
> > >> >> > case
> > >> >> > > > for
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so
> > >> far)?
> > >> >> If
> > >> >> > so,
> > >> >> > > > > what
> > >> >> > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this?
> In
> > my
> > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I
> > >> missing
> > >> >> > > > something?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good
> > point,
> > >> >> yes,
> > >> >> > if
> > >> >> > > > all
> > >> >> > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > ORM
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > internally,
> > >> >> then
> > >> >> > > they
> > >> >> > > > > can
> > >> >> > > > > > > > easily
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > translate
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > >> INSERT/UPDATE
> > >> >> > > > statement
> > >> >> > > > > > that
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > lists
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > all
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring
> > Data
> > >> >> > > > integration
> > >> >> > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > already
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > based
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be
> > >> improved
> > >> >> > once
> > >> >> > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a
> > ton
> > >> of
> > >> >> > > > usability
> > >> >> > > > > > > > issues.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would
> > >> revise
> > >> >> the
> > >> >> > > > > > Hibernate
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > integration
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase.
> > Can't
> > >> >> say
> > >> >> > if
> > >> >> > > > it's
> > >> >> > > > > > > used
> > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > lot
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael
> > >> >> Pollind,
> > >> >> > > I'll
> > >> >> > > > > > loop
> > >> >> > > > > > > > you
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > long
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite
> > >> support
> > >> >> for
> > >> >> > > > > > Micornaut
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > Data
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came
> > across
> > >> >> some
> > >> >> > > > > > challenges.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > Just
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > watch
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming
> in
> > >> >> Ignite
> > >> >> > > 3.0.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon,
> > Aug
> > >> 31,
> > >> >> > 2020
> > >> >> > > > at
> > >> >> > > > > > 5:11
> > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi
> Denis,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> Generally
> > >> >> > > speaking, I
> > >> >> > > > > > > believe
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> addresses
> > >> the
> > >> >> > issue
> > >> >> > > > if
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > duplicate
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> because
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema
> > >> will be
> > >> >> > > > created
> > >> >> > > > > > for
> > >> >> > > > > > > a
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > cache,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > Basically,
> > >> the
> > >> >> > > schema
> > >> >> > > > > > will
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > define
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > whether
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> which
> > >> >> fields
> > >> >> > > are
> > >> >> > > > > > > included
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > case
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have
> must
> > >> be
> > >> >> > > > compliant
> > >> >> > > > > > with
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > this,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > so
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as
> > >> with a
> > >> >> > set
> > >> >> > > of
> > >> >> > > > > > > > records,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> However,
> > >> could
> > >> >> > you
> > >> >> > > > > please
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is
> there
> > a
> > >> use
> > >> >> > case
> > >> >> > > > for
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so
> > >> far)?
> > >> >> If
> > >> >> > so,
> > >> >> > > > > what
> > >> >> > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this?
> In
> > my
> > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I
> > >> missing
> > >> >> > > > something?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon,
> > Aug
> > >> >> 31,
> > >> >> > > 2020
> > >> >> > > > at
> > >> >> > > > > > > 2:08
> > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [hidden email]>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I
> would
> > >> >> propose
> > >> >> > > > > adding
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > another
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > point
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> related
> > >> to
> > >> >> the
> > >> >> > > ORM
> > >> >> > > > > > > > frameworks
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > such
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many
> > >> others.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >> Presently,
> > >> >> the
> > >> >> > > > > storage
> > >> >> > > > > > > > engine
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requires
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value
> > >> ones
> > >> >> that
> > >> >> > > > > > > complicate
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >> frameworks
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >> (especially
> > >> >> if
> > >> >> > a
> > >> >> > > > key
> > >> >> > > > > > > object
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > comprises
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found
> > >> here:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >>
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It
> will
> > >> be
> > >> >> nice
> > >> >> > > if
> > >> >> > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > new
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> single
> > >> >> entity
> > >> >> > > > object
> > >> >> > > > > > when
> > >> >> > > > > > > > it
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > comes
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> entity
> > >> into
> > >> >> a
> > >> >> > key
> > >> >> > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > value.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Just
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > want
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all
> the
> > >> >> > essential
> > >> >> > > > > > public
> > >> >> > > > > > > > APIs
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > single-entity
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > approach.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What
> do
> > >> you
> > >> >> > > think?
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On
> Fri,
> > >> Aug
> > >> >> 28,
> > >> >> > > > 2020
> > >> >> > > > > at
> > >> >> > > > > > > > 3:50
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > PM
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > >> Igniters,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One
> > of
> > >> the
> > >> >> > big
> > >> >> > > > > > changes
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proposed
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > >> >> "schema-first
> > >> >> > > > > > > approach".
> > >> >> > > > > > > > To
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > add
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > started
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for
> > >> this
> > >> >> > > change:
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > Please
> > >> >> take a
> > >> >> > > > look
> > >> >> > > > > > and
> > >> >> > > > > > > > let
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > me
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > >> thoughts,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > >> >> suggestions,
> > >> >> > or
> > >> >> > > > > > > > objections.
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> -Val
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best
> > regards,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan
> > Pavlukhin
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best regards,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan
> Pavlukhin
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > --
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> >> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > > > --
> > >> >> > > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> > >> >> > > > >
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > > > --
> > >> >> > > > Best regards,
> > >> >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >> >> > > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >
>

--
Best regards,
Andrey V. Mashenkov

[Pavel Tupitsyn]

Andrey, I can't find any async methods,
can you please check if the changes are pushed?

On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 10:06 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Pavel, good point.
> Thanks. I've added async methods.
>
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 2:29 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Andrey,
> >
> > What about corresponding async APIs, do we add them now or later?
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 8:11 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Igniters.
> > >
> > > I've created a PR for Table access API [1].
> > > This is an initial version. So, any suggestions\objections are
> welcomed.
> > > Please, do not hesitate to write your comments and\or examples to the
> PR.
> > >
> > > Ignite-api module contains API classes, e.g. TableView classes as
> > > projections for a table for different purposes.
> > > Ignite-table contains dummy implementation and Example class explained
> > how
> > > it is supposed to be used.
> > >
> > >
> > > Also, I'm still waiting for any feedback for Schema configuration
> public
> > > API PR [2].
> > >
> > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/33
> > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:05 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I've updated a PR regarding your feedback [1].
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:58 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Folks,
> > > >>
> > > >> I updated the IEP to contain the missing pieces; actually, most of
> the
> > > >> questions here were covered by the text. Please let me know if there
> > is
> > > >> something still missing or unclear.
> > > >>
> > > >> чт, 31 дек. 2020 г. в 12:48, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > >> >:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Mikhail and Igniters,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thanks for your comments. The questions are reasonable, though I
> > think
> > > >> all
> > > >> > concerns are addressed by the IEP as Val mentioned. I will update
> > the
> > > >> > document according to your questions in the following week or so,
> so
> > > we
> > > >> can
> > > >> > have a constructive discussion further.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > ср, 30 дек. 2020 г. в 11:45, Michael Cherkasov <
> > > >> > [hidden email]>:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> Hi Val, Andrey,
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> thank you for clarifying.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> I still have a few comments.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> 1. one table == one schema. KV vs SQL:
> > > >> >> Looks like all agreed that KV is just a special case of a regular
> > > table
> > > >> >> with (blob,blob) schema.
> > > >> >> I worry about the case when the user starts from KV case and
> later
> > > will
> > > >> >> try
> > > >> >> to expand it and try to leverage SQL for the existing KV table it
> > > >> won't be
> > > >> >> able to do so and will require to reload data. which isn't
> > convenient
> > > >> and
> > > >> >> sometimes not even possible. Is it possible to extract a new
> field
> > > from
> > > >> >> (blob, blob) schema and apply index on it?
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> 2. Could you please also list all ways of schema definition in
> the
> > > >> IEP? It
> > > >> >> significant change and I bet the main point of this IEP, everyone
> > > hates
> > > >> >> QueryEntities, they are difficult to manage and in general, it's
> > very
> > > >> >> confusing to have a data model(schemas) and node/cluster
> > > configuration
> > > >> in
> > > >> >> one place.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> So there will be SchemaBuilder and SQL to define schemas, but
> > Andrey
> > > >> also
> > > >> >> mentioned annotations.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> I personally against configuration via annotations, while it's
> > > >> convenient
> > > >> >> for development, it difficult to manage because different classes
> > can
> > > >> be
> > > >> >> deployed on different clients/servers nodes and it can lead to
> > > >> >> unpredictable results.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> 3. IEP doesn't mention field type changes, only drop/add fields.
> > > Field
> > > >> >> type
> > > >> >> changes are extremely painful right now(if even possible), so it
> > > would
> > > >> be
> > > >> >> nice if some scenarios would be supported(like int8->int16, or
> > > >> >> int8->String).
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> 4. got it, I thought IEP will have more details about the
> > > >> implementation.
> > > >> >> I've seen Andrey even sent benchmark results for a new
> > serialization,
> > > >> will
> > > >> >> ping him about this.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> 5. Thanks for the clarification. I had a wrong understanding of
> > > strick
> > > >> >> mode.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> вт, 29 дек. 2020 г. в 19:32, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > >> >> [hidden email]>:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > Hi Mike,
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > Thanks for providing your feedback. Please see my comments
> below.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > I would also encourage you to go through the IEP-54 [1] - it
> has
> > a
> > > >> lot
> > > >> >> of
> > > >> >> > detail on the topic.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > [1]
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > -Val
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:22 PM Michael Cherkasov <
> > > >> >> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > > Hi all,
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > I reviewed the mail thread and proposal page and I still
> don't
> > > >> fully
> > > >> >> > > understand what is going to be changed, I would really
> > appreciate
> > > >> it
> > > >> >> if
> > > >> >> > you
> > > >> >> > > will answer a few questions:
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > 1. Are you going to leave only one schema per cache? if so,
> > will
> > > be
> > > >> >> there
> > > >> >> > > an option to have a table with arbitrary objects(pure KV
> case)?
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > My opinion is that KV case should be natively supported. I
> think
> > > this
> > > >> >> still
> > > >> >> > needs to be thought over, my current view on this is that we
> > should
> > > >> have
> > > >> >> > separate APIs for KV and more generic storages. KV storage can
> be
> > > >> >> > implemented as a "table" with two BLOB fields where we will
> store
> > > >> >> > serialized key-value pairs. That would imply deserialization on
> > > read,
> > > >> >> but I
> > > >> >> > believe this is OK for KV use cases. I'm happy to hear other
> > ideas
> > > >> >> though
> > > >> >> > :)
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > > 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0 have to define schema?
> > > >> >> > SchemaBuilder
> > > >> >> > > and SQL only? Is there an option to put the schema definition
> > to
> > > >> the
> > > >> >> > > configuration?(I really don't like this, I would prefer to
> have
> > > >> >> > > separate scripts to create schemas)
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > There will be no such thing as a static configuration in the
> > first
> > > >> >> place.
> > > >> >> > Tables and schemas are created in runtime. Even if there is a
> > file
> > > >> >> provided
> > > >> >> > on node startup, this file is only applied in the scope of the
> > > >> 'start'
> > > >> >> > operation. All configurations will be stored in a meta storage
> > > >> >> available to
> > > >> >> > all nodes, as opposed to individual files.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > > 3. Is there a way to change field type? if yes, can it be
> done
> > in
> > > >> >> > runtime?
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > Absolutely! IEP-54 has a whole section about schema evolution.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > > 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going to be re-worked too,
> is
> > > >> there
> > > >> >> any
> > > >> >> > > IEP for this?
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > BinaryMarshaller as a tool for arbitrary object serialization
> > will
> > > be
> > > >> >> gone,
> > > >> >> > but we will reuse a lot of its concept to implement an internal
> > > tuple
> > > >> >> > serialization mechanism. IEP-54 has the description of the
> > proposed
> > > >> data
> > > >> >> > format.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > > 5. I don't like automatic schema evaluation when a new field
> is
> > > >> added
> > > >> >> > > automatically on record put, so is there a way to prohibit
> this
> > > >> >> behavior?
> > > >> >> > >  I think all schema changes should be done only explicitly
> > except
> > > >> >> initial
> > > >> >> > > schema creation.
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > The way I see it is that we should have two modes: schema-first
> > and
> > > >> >> > schema-last. Schema-first means exactly what you've described -
> > > >> schemas
> > > >> >> are
> > > >> >> > defined and updated explicitly by the user. In the schema-last
> > > mode,
> > > >> >> > the user does not deal with schemas, as they are inferred from
> > the
> > > >> data
> > > >> >> > inserted into tables. We should definitely not mix these modes
> -
> > it
> > > >> has
> > > >> >> to
> > > >> >> > be one or another. And it probably makes sense to discuss which
> > > mode
> > > >> >> should
> > > >> >> > be the default one.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > Thanks,
> > > >> >> > > Mike.
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > >> >> > [hidden email]
> > > >> >> > > >:
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > > Hi, Igniters.
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > We all know that the current QueryEntity API is not
> > convenient
> > > >> and
> > > >> >> > needs
> > > >> >> > > to
> > > >> >> > > > be reworked.
> > > >> >> > > > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema configuration
> public
> > > API
> > > >> >> for
> > > >> >> > > > Ignite 3.0.
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > New schema configuration uses Builder pattern, which looks
> > more
> > > >> >> > > comfortable
> > > >> >> > > > to use.
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package with the API
> > itself,
> > > >> and
> > > >> >> a
> > > >> >> > > draft
> > > >> >> > > > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
> > > >> >> > > > and a test that demonstrates how the API could be used.
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > Please note:
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with static factory
> > > >> methods.
> > > >> >> > > > * The implementation is decoupled and can be easily
> extracted
> > > to
> > > >> >> > separate
> > > >> >> > > > module if we decide to do so.
> > > >> >> > > > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are missed, they will
> > be
> > > >> added
> > > >> >> > > lately
> > > >> >> > > > in separate tickes.
> > > >> >> > > > * Index configuration extends marker interface that makes
> > > >> possible
> > > >> >> to
> > > >> >> > > > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
> > > >> >> > > > Hopfully, we could add a persistent geo-indices support in
> > > >> future.
> > > >> >> > > > * Supposedly, current table schema can be changed via
> > > >> builder-like
> > > >> >> > > > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See
> > > >> >> 'TableModificationBuilder'
> > > >> >> > > for
> > > >> >> > > > details.
> > > >> >> > > > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have 'toBuilder()'
> > converter
> > > >> for
> > > >> >> that
> > > >> >> > > > purpose as it is a Schema Manager responsibility to create
> > > >> mutator
> > > >> >> > > objects
> > > >> >> > > > from the current schema,
> > > >> >> > > > but implementing the Schema manager is out of scope and
> will
> > be
> > > >> >> > designed
> > > >> >> > > > within the next task.
> > > >> >> > > > * Interfaces implementations are out of scope. I did not
> > intend
> > > >> to
> > > >> >> > merge
> > > >> >> > > > them right now, but for test/demostration purposes.
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > It is NOT the final version and some may be changed before
> > the
> > > >> first
> > > >> >> > > > release of course.
> > > >> >> > > > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed with this
> > approach
> > > or
> > > >> >> some
> > > >> >> > > > issues should be resolved at first.
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > Any thoughts or objections?
> > > >> >> > > > Are interfaces good enough to be merged within the current
> > > >> ticket?
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <
> > > >> [hidden email]>
> > > >> >> > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types:
> > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
> > > >> >> > > > > 2. It requires adding new types to the internal
> > > representation,
> > > >> >> > > protocol,
> > > >> >> > > > > e.t.c.
> > > >> >> > > > > 3. internal representation should be the same as we keep
> > sign
> > > >> >> types.
> > > >> >> > So
> > > >> >> > > > it
> > > >> >> > > > > will not requires more memory
> > > >> >> > > > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such types for
> > platforms
> > > >> >> which
> > > >> >> > not
> > > >> >> > > > > support unsigned types. For example, a user could derive
> -6
> > > >> value
> > > >> >> in
> > > >> >> > > Java
> > > >> >> > > > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits perspective will
> be
> > > >> >> right). I
> > > >> >> > > > think
> > > >> >> > > > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such cases,
> especially
> > it
> > > >> >> will be
> > > >> >> > > bad
> > > >> >> > > > > for unsigned long when we require returns BigInteger
> type.
> > > >> >> > > > > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix for new types
> > > like
> > > >> a
> > > >> >> > > '250u' -
> > > >> >> > > > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
> > > >> >> > > > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive comparison
> logic
> > > for
> > > >> >> > indexes
> > > >> >> > > > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for expressions. I
> > think
> > > it
> > > >> >> not
> > > >> >> > > > > possible for the current H2 engine and probably possible
> > for
> > > >> the
> > > >> >> new
> > > >> >> > > > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from anybody who
> > involved
> > > in
> > > >> >> this
> > > >> >> > > part
> > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > WDYT?
> > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > >> >> > > > [hidden email]
> > > >> >> > > > > >:
> > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0: once we
> the
> > > >> actual
> > > >> >> > type
> > > >> >> > > > > > information, we can make proper runtime adjustments and
> > > >> >> conversions
> > > >> >> > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will be just a bit
> > more
> > > >> >> > > expensive.
> > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > >> >> [hidden email]
> > > >> >> > >:
> > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
> > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons and so on
> > are
> > > >> >> broken
> > > >> >> > > > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned this
> > > somewhere
> > > >> >> > above.
> > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document that SQL is not
> > > >> >> supported
> > > >> >> > on
> > > >> >> > > > > those
> > > >> >> > > > > > > types,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > end of story.
> > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable request. I
> > thought
> > > >> about
> > > >> >> > this
> > > >> >> > > > > when
> > > >> >> > > > > > I
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add these
> > types
> > > >> right
> > > >> >> > > away.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the
> beginning
> > > with
> > > >> >> .NET
> > > >> >> > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > C++
> > > >> >> > > > > > :)
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually works as
> > expected,
> > > it
> > > >> >> needs
> > > >> >> > > > some
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns are false):
> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - It's true that equality check works properly,
> > but
> > > >> for
> > > >> >> SQL
> > > >> >> > > > range
> > > >> >> > > > > > > >    queries it will break unless some special care
> is
> > > >> taken
> > > >> >> on
> > > >> >> > > Java
> > > >> >> > > > > > side:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > for
> > > >> >> > > > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will be
> > converted
> > > >> to
> > > >> >> -1,
> > > >> >> > > > which
> > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > >> >> > > > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we don't have
> unsigned
> > > >> types
> > > >> >> > now,
> > > >> >> > > I
> > > >> >> > > > > > doubt
> > > >> >> > > > > > > it
> > > >> >> > > > > > > >    works.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - There is an obvious cross-platform data loss
> > when
> > > >> >> > > "intuitive"
> > > >> >> > > > > type
> > > >> >> > > > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8 corresponds to
> byte
> > > >> type in
> > > >> >> > > .NET,
> > > >> >> > > > > but
> > > >> >> > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have to use short
> > > type
> > > >> in
> > > >> >> > Java,
> > > >> >> > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> >> > > > > > > >    will also need to take care of the range check
> > > during
> > > >> >> > > > > > serialization).
> > > >> >> > > > > > > I
> > > >> >> > > > > > > >    think we can even allow to try to deserialize a
> > > value
> > > >> >> into
> > > >> >> > > > > arbitrary
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > type,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > >    but throw an exception if the range is out of
> > > bounds.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once all the
> > > details
> > > >> >> are
> > > >> >> > > > settled
> > > >> >> > > > > > > here?
> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't be
> treated
> > > >> >> correctly
> > > >> >> > > for
> > > >> >> > > > > now
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I think we could make "true" support for unsigned
> > > >> types,
> > > >> >> but
> > > >> >> > > they
> > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map uint64 to
> > Java
> > > >> long
> > > >> >> > > > > primitive,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > but
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > BigInteger only.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64 to Java
> long,
> > > but
> > > >> >> treat
> > > >> >> > > > > negative
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > values in a different way to preserve correct
> > > ordering.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > These limitations will affect only mixed
> > environments
> > > >> when
> > > >> >> > .Net
> > > >> >> > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > Java
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > used to access the data.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Will this solution address your issues?
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > >> >> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the
> > beginning
> > > >> with
> > > >> >> > .NET
> > > >> >> > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > C++
> > > >> >> > > > > > > :)
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as cache keys
> and
> > > >> >> values,
> > > >> >> > as
> > > >> >> > > > > fields
> > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > properties,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y clauses)
> -
> > it
> > > >> >> works
> > > >> >> > > > > > > transparently
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > for
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the users.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats those values
> > as
> > > >> >> > > > corresponding
> > > >> >> > > > > > > signed
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in some cases
> > only
> > > >> >> because
> > > >> >> > > > there
> > > >> >> > > > > > are
> > > >> >> > > > > > > no
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very simple change
> to
> > > the
> > > >> >> > > protocol
> > > >> >> > > > -
> > > >> >> > > > > > add
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > type
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as signed
> > > >> >> counterparts.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey
> Mashenkov
> > <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise
> > > >> representation
> > > >> >> is
> > > >> >> > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > same)
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a uByte
> > field
> > > >> and
> > > >> >> map
> > > >> >> > it
> > > >> >> > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > 'uint8'
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > column.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to "250" and put
> > the
> > > >> >> object
> > > >> >> > > > into a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > table,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a single byte
> > > 'int8'
> > > >> >> > column.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it to
> > directly
> > > >> the
> > > >> >> Java
> > > >> >> > > > > object
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > field
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > of
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8 type to
> > Java
> > > >> >> 'short'
> > > >> >> > > type
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > because the one expected to see "250" as a
> > value
> > > >> which
> > > >> >> > > > doesn't
> > > >> >> > > > > > fit
> > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > signed type.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a BigInteger
> field
> > in
> > > >> >> Java.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat column value as
> > Java
> > > >> >> 'byte'
> > > >> >> > as
> > > >> >> > > > is,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > because
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a negative value,
> so
> > > it
> > > >> >> should
> > > >> >> > > be
> > > >> >> > > > > cast
> > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > short
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger for
> uint64)
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will require a
> > different
> > > >> >> > > comparator.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel
> Tupitsyn
> > <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a good
> idea.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the simple
> > > approach
> > > >> I
> > > >> >> > > > described?
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrey
> > > Mashenkov
> > > >> <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing range for
> > > unsigned
> > > >> >> types
> > > >> >> > > > then
> > > >> >> > > > > we
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > could
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > add a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on schema
> > level
> > > >> >> (like
> > > >> >> > > > > > nullability
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > flag)
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types in
> storage.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate storage
> > > >> type-system
> > > >> >> and
> > > >> >> > > > binary
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > protocol
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of type will
> > match
> > > 1
> > > >> to
> > > >> >> 1
> > > >> >> > > with
> > > >> >> > > > > > > storage
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (native)
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either have a
> > separate
> > > >> type
> > > >> >> id
> > > >> >> > or
> > > >> >> > > > > treat
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > serialized
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed or
> > unsigned
> > > >> >> flag).
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever foresee the
> > > >> >> consequences
> > > >> >> > of
> > > >> >> > > > > using
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned types
> > > perfectly
> > > >> >> works
> > > >> >> > > > with
> > > >> >> > > > > > some
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > database,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite successor
> > > confession
> > > >> >> with
> > > >> >> > our
> > > >> >> > > > > > > "native"
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he can use the
> > power
> > > >> of
> > > >> >> > Ignite
> > > >> >> > > > > > Compute
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > on
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either fail to use
> > his
> > > >> >> > unsigned
> > > >> >> > > > data
> > > >> >> > > > > > on
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > Java
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > due
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due to natural
> Java
> > > >> type
> > > >> >> > system
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > limitations
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively supported types
> > with
> > > >> >> possible
> > > >> >> > > > value
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > ranges
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is what trade-off
> we
> > > >> found
> > > >> >> > > > > acceptable:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > narrowing
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use types of wider
> > > >> range on
> > > >> >> > > > systems
> > > >> >> > > > > > like
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Java.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor
> > Sapego <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so hard to
> > > >> implement
> > > >> >> > > > > comparison
> > > >> >> > > > > > > of
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not seem
> to
> > > be a
> > > >> >> big
> > > >> >> > > issue
> > > >> >> > > > > > from
> > > >> >> > > > > > > my
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned types from
> > > Java
> > > >> - I
> > > >> >> > > think,
> > > >> >> > > > > if
> > > >> >> > > > > > a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > user
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to interact
> with
> > > it
> > > >> >> from
> > > >> >> > > Java
> > > >> >> > > > he
> > > >> >> > > > > > > knows
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > what
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > he
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from platforms
> > > where
> > > >> >> they
> > > >> >> > > have
> > > >> >> > > > > > native
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > support
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > widely
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where users
> > > >> currently
> > > >> >> > have
> > > >> >> > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > make a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > manual
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > casting
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using unsigned types
> > when
> > > >> they
> > > >> >> > use
> > > >> >> > > > > > Ignite.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM Pavel
> > > >> Tupitsyn <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for those
> types
> > > >> >> > (basically,
> > > >> >> > > > just
> > > >> >> > > > > > add
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > more
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java
> (bitwise
> > > >> >> > > representation
> > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > same)
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned
> > integers,
> > > >> so
> > > >> >> we
> > > >> >> > can
> > > >> >> > > > > > simply
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > say
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative comparison is
> > not
> > > >> >> > supported
> > > >> >> > > > in
> > > >> >> > > > > > SQL
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (equality
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM
> Andrey
> > > >> >> Mashenkov
> > > >> >> > <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have i8 or
> int8
> > > >> >> instead of
> > > >> >> > > > > > Integer.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't address the
> > > issue.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types should be
> > > portable
> > > >> >> > across
> > > >> >> > > > > > > different
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > systems
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type support.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is that
> unsigned
> > > >> types
> > > >> >> > cover
> > > >> >> > > > > > > different
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > ranges.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to introduce a
> > > >> uLong.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big deal to
> > add
> > > >> uLong
> > > >> >> > type
> > > >> >> > > > > > support
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > at
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > storage
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and then
> use
> > it
> > > >> in
> > > >> >> e.g.
> > > >> >> > > > .Net
> > > >> >> > > > > > > only.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support it in e.g.
> > > Java?
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range is
> > about
> > > >> >> (2^-63
> > > >> >> > ..
> > > >> >> > > > > 2^63)
> > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > range
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to restrict
> > > range
> > > >> to
> > > >> >> (0
> > > >> >> > ..
> > > >> >> > > > > > 2^63).
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > This
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but
> doesn't
> > > look
> > > >> >> like
> > > >> >> > a
> > > >> >> > > > > 'real'
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse when the
> > user
> > > >> will
> > > >> >> use
> > > >> >> > > > > uByte,
> > > >> >> > > > > > as
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > limitation
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map
> unsigned
> > > >> types
> > > >> >> to a
> > > >> >> > > > type
> > > >> >> > > > > of
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > wider
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative values.
> > E.g.
> > > >> >> uLong to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > BigInteger.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive Java
> type
> > > for
> > > >> >> Long
> > > >> >> > > here.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > However,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > still
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8 bytes,
> > but
> > > >> >> have a
> > > >> >> > > > > special
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > comparator
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid unwanted
> > > >> >> > deserialization.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM
> Pavel
> > > >> >> Tupitsyn
> > > >> >> > <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of "long,
> > short,
> > > >> >> byte"
> > > >> >> > in
> > > >> >> > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > protocol
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style, which is
> > > concise
> > > >> >> and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > unambiguous:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM
> > Igor
> > > >> >> Sapego <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support that. Also,
> if
> > we
> > > >> are
> > > >> >> > > aiming
> > > >> >> > > > > for
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger platform-independance,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may want to
> > > support
> > > >> >> > > > > bit-notation
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (int32,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a different
> type
> > on
> > > >> >> > different
> > > >> >> > > > > > > platforms
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often when using
> > ODBC
> > > >> for
> > > >> >> > > > example).
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM
> > > Pavel
> > > >> >> > > Tupitsyn
> > > >> >> > > > <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should support
> > > unsigned
> > > >> >> data
> > > >> >> > > > types:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have them, but
> > many
> > > >> >> other
> > > >> >> > > > > languages
> > > >> >> > > > > > > do,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing number
> of
> > > thin
> > > >> >> > clients
> > > >> >> > > > > this
> > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in current
> > > Ignite.NET
> > > >> >> > > > > implementation
> > > >> >> > > > > > > we
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > store
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain when
> it
> > > >> comes
> > > >> >> to
> > > >> >> > > > > > metadata,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > binary
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to deserialize
> int
> > as
> > > >> uint
> > > >> >> > when
> > > >> >> > > > you
> > > >> >> > > > > > > have
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > class,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28
> > PM
> > > >> >> Andrey
> > > >> >> > > > > > Mashenkov <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both
> serializers
> > > use
> > > >> >> > > reflection
> > > >> >> > > > > > API.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will allow
> users
> > to
> > > >> >> > configure
> > > >> >> > > > > > static
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > schema
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > along
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still need
> to
> > > >> >> validate
> > > >> >> > > user
> > > >> >> > > > > > > classes
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > on
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > client
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in the
> grid
> > > >> and
> > > >> >> > > > reflection
> > > >> >> > > > > > API
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few articles
> > on
> > > >> the
> > > >> >> > > internet
> > > >> >> > > > > on
> > > >> >> > > > > > > how
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task for
> > > supporting
> > > >> >> > > GraalVM,
> > > >> >> > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > maybe
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM will
> > > >> suggest a
> > > >> >> > > > solution
> > > >> >> > > > > > or
> > > >> >> > > > > > > a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proper
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is found,
> we
> > > >> could
> > > >> >> > allow
> > > >> >> > > > > users
> > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > write
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > own
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I don't
> think
> > > it
> > > >> is
> > > >> >> a
> > > >> >> > > good
> > > >> >> > > > > idea
> > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > expose
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the public.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
> 2:55
> > AM
> > > >> >> Denis
> > > >> >> > > > Magda <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the
> > > update,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the
> serializers
> > > >> take
> > > >> >> into
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > consideration
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native-image-generation
> > > >> feature of
> > > >> >> > > > GraalVM?
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current binary
> > > >> >> marshaller,
> > > >> >> > we
> > > >> >> > > > > can't
> > > >> >> > > > > > > even
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > generate
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using our
> thin
> > > >> client
> > > >> >> > > APIs.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at
> > 4:39
> > > AM
> > > >> >> > Andrey
> > > >> >> > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to continue
> > > >> discussion
> > > >> >> of
> > > >> >> > > > IEP-54
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who is
> > > >> interested
> > > >> >> > had a
> > > >> >> > > > > > chance
> > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > get
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not hesitate
> > to
> > > >> ask
> > > >> >> > > > questions
> > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > share
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a
> prototype
> > > of
> > > >> >> > > serializer
> > > >> >> > > > > [2]
> > > >> >> > > > > > > for
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > data
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I compared
> 2
> > > >> >> approaches
> > > >> >> > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > (de)serialize
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java
> > reflection/unsafe
> > > >> API
> > > >> >> and
> > > >> >> > > > > similar
> > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > one
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second one
> > > generates
> > > >> >> > > serializer
> > > >> >> > > > > for
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > particular
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library for
> > > >> compilation.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows better
> > > >> results
> > > >> >> in
> > > >> >> > > > > > > benchmarks.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go with
> it
> > > as
> > > >> >> > default
> > > >> >> > > > > > > serializer
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation as a
> > > fallback
> > > >> if
> > > >> >> > > someone
> > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > issues
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of
> > tasks
> > > >> >> under
> > > >> >> > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > umbrella
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ticket
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to
> create
> > > more
> > > >> >> > tickets
> > > >> >> > > > for
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > schema
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > manager
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation, but
> would
> > > >> like
> > > >> >> to
> > > >> >> > > > clarify
> > > >> >> > > > > > > some
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > details.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought schemaManager
> > on
> > > >> each
> > > >> >> > node
> > > >> >> > > > > should
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > held:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping of
> > > "schema
> > > >> >> > > version"
> > > >> >> > > > > <-->
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > validated
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide
> schema
> > > >> changes
> > > >> >> > > > history.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client side.
> > Before
> > > >> any
> > > >> >> > > > key-value
> > > >> >> > > > > > API
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > operation
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a given
> > > key-value
> > > >> >> pair.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no
> > > local-mapping
> > > >> >> exists
> > > >> >> > > > for a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > given
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema
> has a
> > > >> more
> > > >> >> > recent
> > > >> >> > > > > > version
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be validated
> > against
> > > >> the
> > > >> >> > > latest
> > > >> >> > > > > > > version
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object doesn't
> fit
> > to
> > > >> the
> > > >> >> > > latest
> > > >> >> > > > > > schema
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > depends
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail the
> > > >> operation
> > > >> >> > > > ('strict'
> > > >> >> > > > > > > mode)
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > or
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a new
> schema
> > > >> version
> > > >> >> > > should
> > > >> >> > > > > be
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > propagated
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server side we
> > > usually
> > > >> >> have
> > > >> >> > no
> > > >> >> > > > > > > key-value
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > classes
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change
> history
> > is
> > > >> >> > available
> > > >> >> > > > > and a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > tuple
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > has
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to
> upgrade
> > > any
> > > >> >> > > received
> > > >> >> > > > > > tuple
> > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > last
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow
> nodes
> > > to
> > > >> >> send
> > > >> >> > > > > key-value
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > pairs
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't receive a
> > > schema
> > > >> >> update
> > > >> >> > > > yet)
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > without
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > reverting
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node with
> newer
> > > >> >> classes.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you
> > > mean
> > > >> the
> > > >> >> > > same?
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at
> > > 9:21
> > > >> AM
> > > >> >> > Ivan
> > > >> >> > > > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not ignore
> > > >> history.
> > > >> >> We
> > > >> >> > > had
> > > >> >> > > > a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > thread
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can resume
> > it.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08
> > > GMT+03:00,
> > > >> >> Denis
> > > >> >> > > > Magda
> > > >> >> > > > > <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense,
> > > thanks
> > > >> for
> > > >> >> > > > > > explaining.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we need
> to
> > > >> have a
> > > >> >> > > > separate
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms
> > > >> substitution.
> > > >> >> > I'll
> > > >> >> > > > > > > appreciate
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > if
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing pointers to
> > any
> > > >> >> > relevant
> > > >> >> > > > IEPs
> > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > reasoning
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020
> > at
> > > >> 6:01
> > > >> >> PM
> > > >> >> > > > > Valentin
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> [hidden email]>
> > > >> >> > > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the
> wording
> > in
> > > >> the
> > > >> >> IEP
> > > >> >> > > is
> > > >> >> > > > a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > little
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > bit
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you should
> not
> > > >> create
> > > >> >> > > nested
> > > >> >> > > > > > POJOs,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > but
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO that
> is
> > > >> mapped
> > > >> >> to
> > > >> >> > a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > particular
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not
> > > supported.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this
> > correct?
> > > >> >> Please
> > > >> >> > > let
> > > >> >> > > > me
> > > >> >> > > > > > > know
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > if
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the "cache"
> > > >> term, I
> > > >> >> > agree
> > > >> >> > > > > that
> > > >> >> > > > > > it
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can
> replace
> > it
> > > >> >> with.
> > > >> >> > > > "Table"
> > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > tightly
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional in
> > our
> > > >> >> case.
> > > >> >> > Do
> > > >> >> > > > you
> > > >> >> > > > > > want
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > create a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8,
> 2020
> > at
> > > >> >> 4:37 PM
> > > >> >> > > > Denis
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked the
> > IEP
> > > >> again
> > > >> >> > and
> > > >> >> > > > > have a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > few
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > questions.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested
> > > >> objects
> > > >> >> and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > collections
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > are
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs
> > should
> > > >> >> either
> > > >> >> > be
> > > >> >> > > > > > inlined
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > into
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you
> provide a
> > > DDL
> > > >> >> code
> > > >> >> > > > > snippet
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > showing
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to work?
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep
> using
> > > the
> > > >> >> terms
> > > >> >> > > > > "cache"
> > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right time to
> > > >> discuss
> > > >> >> an
> > > >> >> > > > > > alternate
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > name
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the
> > > "table"
> > > >> >> > should
> > > >> >> > > > stay
> > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one
> of
> > > the
> > > >> >> > primary
> > > >> >> > > > APIs
> > > >> >> > > > > > in
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7,
> 2020
> > > at
> > > >> >> 12:26
> > > >> >> > PM
> > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> >> > [hidden email]>
> > > >> >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your
> > point. I
> > > >> >> agree
> > > >> >> > > that
> > > >> >> > > > > with
> > > >> >> > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > automatic
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last
> > > >> territory.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we
> > > >> support
> > > >> >> > > > automatic
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > evolution,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a
> cache
> > > >> without
> > > >> >> > > schema
> > > >> >> > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > inferring
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other words, we
> > can
> > > >> have
> > > >> >> > both
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do
> > you
> > > >> >> think?
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7,
> > 2020
> > > >> at
> > > >> >> 5:59
> > > >> >> > > AM
> > > >> >> > > > > > Alexey
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> >> [hidden email]
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I
> > got
> > > >> your
> > > >> >> > > concern
> > > >> >> > > > > > now.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > As
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > terminology,
> I
> > am
> > > >> >> > > absolutely
> > > >> >> > > > > fine
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > with
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the approach
> > > best.
> > > >> >> > Dynamic
> > > >> >> > > or
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > evolving
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > corresponding
> > > >> changes
> > > >> >> to
> > > >> >> > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > IEP
> > > >> >> > > > > > > once
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > we
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > settle
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент.
> > 2020
> > > >> г. в
> > > >> >> > > 11:33,
> > > >> >> > > > > Ivan
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you
> for
> > > >> your
> > > >> >> > > answer!
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My
> > > understanding
> > > >> is
> > > >> >> a
> > > >> >> > > > little
> > > >> >> > > > > > bit
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > different.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > definitely
> > > >> should be
> > > >> >> > > > > possible.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > But
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > I
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > see
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > main
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is
> > > >> updated".
> > > >> >> I
> > > >> >> > > > treat a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > common
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data
> > > >> >> manipulation
> > > >> >> > > > > > operations
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > are
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > clearly
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > interesting
> > > >> >> > capabilities,
> > > >> >> > > > > e.g.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > preventing
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken
> data
> > > >> >> > operations,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > restricting
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > Schema-first
> > > >> means
> > > >> >> > that
> > > >> >> > > > > > schema
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > exists
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> compliant
> > > with
> > > >> >> it -
> > > >> >> > > > that's
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > exactly
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A
> schema-last
> > > >> >> approach
> > > >> >> > > > > > mentioned
> > > >> >> > > > > > > in
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > also
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but
> > it
> > > is
> > > >> >> > > inferred
> > > >> >> > > > > from
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > data.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing
> > > >> approach?
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would
> > > like
> > > >> to
> > > >> >> > say,
> > > >> >> > > > that
> > > >> >> > > > > > my
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > main
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> terminology.
> > > And
> > > >> I
> > > >> >> > > suppose
> > > >> >> > > > if
> > > >> >> > > > > > it
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > confuses
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused as
> > > >> well. My
> > > >> >> > > > feeling
> > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > closer
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving
> > > schema".
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07
> > 0:47
> > > >> >> > > GMT+03:00,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > >> >> > > > > > >:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't
> see
> > > an
> > > >> >> issue
> > > >> >> > > with
> > > >> >> > > > > > that.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance
> and
> > > all
> > > >> >> the
> > > >> >> > > > stored
> > > >> >> > > > > > data
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > compliant
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is
> > proposed.
> > > >> There
> > > >> >> > are
> > > >> >> > > no
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > restrictions
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat,
> Sep
> > > 5,
> > > >> >> 2020
> > > >> >> > at
> > > >> >> > > > 9:52
> > > >> >> > > > > > PM
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ivan
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > [hidden email]>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a
> > > little
> > > >> bit
> > > >> >> > > > confused
> > > >> >> > > > > > > with
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a
> > survey
> > > >> [1]
> > > >> >> (see
> > > >> >> > > > part
> > > >> >> > > > > X
> > > >> >> > > > > > > Semi
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Structured
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a
> "dynamic
> > > >> >> schema"
> > > >> >> > > > > approach
> > > >> >> > > > > > > as a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > kind
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> 2020-09-02
> > > >> 1:53
> > > >> >> > > > GMT+03:00,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > Denis
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > However,
> > > >> could
> > > >> >> > you
> > > >> >> > > > > please
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is
> > there
> > > a
> > > >> use
> > > >> >> > case
> > > >> >> > > > for
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one
> so
> > > >> far)?
> > > >> >> If
> > > >> >> > so,
> > > >> >> > > > > what
> > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this?
> > In
> > > my
> > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I
> > > >> missing
> > > >> >> > > > something?
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good
> > > point,
> > > >> >> yes,
> > > >> >> > if
> > > >> >> > > > all
> > > >> >> > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > ORM
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > internally,
> > > >> >> then
> > > >> >> > > they
> > > >> >> > > > > can
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > easily
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > translate
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >> INSERT/UPDATE
> > > >> >> > > > statement
> > > >> >> > > > > > that
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > lists
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring
> > > Data
> > > >> >> > > > integration
> > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > already
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > based
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be
> > > >> improved
> > > >> >> > once
> > > >> >> > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve
> a
> > > ton
> > > >> of
> > > >> >> > > > usability
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > issues.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I
> would
> > > >> revise
> > > >> >> the
> > > >> >> > > > > > Hibernate
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase.
> > > Can't
> > > >> >> say
> > > >> >> > if
> > > >> >> > > > it's
> > > >> >> > > > > > > used
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > lot
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> getting
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> @Michael
> > > >> >> Pollind,
> > > >> >> > > I'll
> > > >> >> > > > > > loop
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > you
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > long
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite
> > > >> support
> > > >> >> for
> > > >> >> > > > > > Micornaut
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Data
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > >> >>
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came
> > > across
> > > >> >> some
> > > >> >> > > > > > challenges.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Just
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > watch
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming
> > in
> > > >> >> Ignite
> > > >> >> > > 3.0.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On
> Mon,
> > > Aug
> > > >> 31,
> > > >> >> > 2020
> > > >> >> > > > at
> > > >> >> > > > > > 5:11
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi
> > Denis,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > Generally
> > > >> >> > > speaking, I
> > > >> >> > > > > > > believe
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > addresses
> > > >> the
> > > >> >> > issue
> > > >> >> > > > if
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > duplicate
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> because
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> schema
> > > >> will be
> > > >> >> > > > created
> > > >> >> > > > > > for
> > > >> >> > > > > > > a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > cache,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > Basically,
> > > >> the
> > > >> >> > > schema
> > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > define
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > whether
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > which
> > > >> >> fields
> > > >> >> > > are
> > > >> >> > > > > > > included
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have
> > must
> > > >> be
> > > >> >> > > > compliant
> > > >> >> > > > > > with
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > this,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data
> as
> > > >> with a
> > > >> >> > set
> > > >> >> > > of
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > records,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > However,
> > > >> could
> > > >> >> > you
> > > >> >> > > > > please
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM?
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is
> > there
> > > a
> > > >> use
> > > >> >> > case
> > > >> >> > > > for
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one
> so
> > > >> far)?
> > > >> >> If
> > > >> >> > so,
> > > >> >> > > > > what
> > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this?
> > In
> > > my
> > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I
> > > >> missing
> > > >> >> > > > something?
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On
> Mon,
> > > Aug
> > > >> >> 31,
> > > >> >> > > 2020
> > > >> >> > > > at
> > > >> >> > > > > > > 2:08
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> [hidden email]>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> Val,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I
> > would
> > > >> >> propose
> > > >> >> > > > > adding
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > another
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > point
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> list
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > related
> > > >> to
> > > >> >> the
> > > >> >> > > ORM
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > frameworks
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> Micronaut
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> many
> > > >> others.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >> Presently,
> > > >> >> the
> > > >> >> > > > > storage
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > engine
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requires
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> from
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> value
> > > >> ones
> > > >> >> that
> > > >> >> > > > > > > complicate
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >> frameworks
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >> (especially
> > > >> >> if
> > > >> >> > a
> > > >> >> > > > key
> > > >> >> > > > > > > object
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > comprises
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> More
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> found
> > > >> here:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It
> > will
> > > >> be
> > > >> >> nice
> > > >> >> > > if
> > > >> >> > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > new
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > single
> > > >> >> entity
> > > >> >> > > > object
> > > >> >> > > > > > when
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > it
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > comes
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> split
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > entity
> > > >> into
> > > >> >> a
> > > >> >> > key
> > > >> >> > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > value.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Just
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all
> > the
> > > >> >> > essential
> > > >> >> > > > > > public
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > APIs
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > single-entity
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> based
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > approach.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> What
> > do
> > > >> you
> > > >> >> > > think?
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> Denis
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On
> > Fri,
> > > >> Aug
> > > >> >> 28,
> > > >> >> > > > 2020
> > > >> >> > > > > at
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > 3:50
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > PM
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> Igniters,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> One
> > > of
> > > >> the
> > > >> >> > big
> > > >> >> > > > > > changes
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proposed
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> "schema-first
> > > >> >> > > > > > > approach".
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > To
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > add
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > started
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> the
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> for
> > > >> this
> > > >> >> > > change:
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > Please
> > > >> >> take a
> > > >> >> > > > look
> > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > let
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > me
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> thoughts,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> suggestions,
> > > >> >> > or
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > objections.
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > -Val
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best
> > > regards,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan
> > > Pavlukhin
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best
> regards,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan
> > Pavlukhin
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > --
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > > > --
> > > >> >> > > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > > > --
> > > >> >> > > > Best regards,
> > > >> >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> >> > >
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>

[Andrew Mashenkov]

Pavel,
There are 2 PR's for the ticket[1] with two different APIs  suggested.
Please, take a look at PR [2].

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14035
[2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/69

On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:11 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Andrey, I can't find any async methods,
> can you please check if the changes are pushed?
>
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 10:06 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Pavel, good point.
> > Thanks. I've added async methods.
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 2:29 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Andrey,
> > >
> > > What about corresponding async APIs, do we add them now or later?
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 8:11 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Igniters.
> > > >
> > > > I've created a PR for Table access API [1].
> > > > This is an initial version. So, any suggestions\objections are
> > welcomed.
> > > > Please, do not hesitate to write your comments and\or examples to the
> > PR.
> > > >
> > > > Ignite-api module contains API classes, e.g. TableView classes as
> > > > projections for a table for different purposes.
> > > > Ignite-table contains dummy implementation and Example class
> explained
> > > how
> > > > it is supposed to be used.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Also, I'm still waiting for any feedback for Schema configuration
> > public
> > > > API PR [2].
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/33
> > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:05 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I've updated a PR regarding your feedback [1].
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:58 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Folks,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I updated the IEP to contain the missing pieces; actually, most of
> > the
> > > > >> questions here were covered by the text. Please let me know if
> there
> > > is
> > > > >> something still missing or unclear.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> чт, 31 дек. 2020 г. в 12:48, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > >> >:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Mikhail and Igniters,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Thanks for your comments. The questions are reasonable, though I
> > > think
> > > > >> all
> > > > >> > concerns are addressed by the IEP as Val mentioned. I will
> update
> > > the
> > > > >> > document according to your questions in the following week or
> so,
> > so
> > > > we
> > > > >> can
> > > > >> > have a constructive discussion further.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > ср, 30 дек. 2020 г. в 11:45, Michael Cherkasov <
> > > > >> > [hidden email]>:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> Hi Val, Andrey,
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> thank you for clarifying.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> I still have a few comments.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> 1. one table == one schema. KV vs SQL:
> > > > >> >> Looks like all agreed that KV is just a special case of a
> regular
> > > > table
> > > > >> >> with (blob,blob) schema.
> > > > >> >> I worry about the case when the user starts from KV case and
> > later
> > > > will
> > > > >> >> try
> > > > >> >> to expand it and try to leverage SQL for the existing KV table
> it
> > > > >> won't be
> > > > >> >> able to do so and will require to reload data. which isn't
> > > convenient
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> >> sometimes not even possible. Is it possible to extract a new
> > field
> > > > from
> > > > >> >> (blob, blob) schema and apply index on it?
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> 2. Could you please also list all ways of schema definition in
> > the
> > > > >> IEP? It
> > > > >> >> significant change and I bet the main point of this IEP,
> everyone
> > > > hates
> > > > >> >> QueryEntities, they are difficult to manage and in general,
> it's
> > > very
> > > > >> >> confusing to have a data model(schemas) and node/cluster
> > > > configuration
> > > > >> in
> > > > >> >> one place.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> So there will be SchemaBuilder and SQL to define schemas, but
> > > Andrey
> > > > >> also
> > > > >> >> mentioned annotations.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> I personally against configuration via annotations, while it's
> > > > >> convenient
> > > > >> >> for development, it difficult to manage because different
> classes
> > > can
> > > > >> be
> > > > >> >> deployed on different clients/servers nodes and it can lead to
> > > > >> >> unpredictable results.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> 3. IEP doesn't mention field type changes, only drop/add
> fields.
> > > > Field
> > > > >> >> type
> > > > >> >> changes are extremely painful right now(if even possible), so
> it
> > > > would
> > > > >> be
> > > > >> >> nice if some scenarios would be supported(like int8->int16, or
> > > > >> >> int8->String).
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> 4. got it, I thought IEP will have more details about the
> > > > >> implementation.
> > > > >> >> I've seen Andrey even sent benchmark results for a new
> > > serialization,
> > > > >> will
> > > > >> >> ping him about this.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> 5. Thanks for the clarification. I had a wrong understanding of
> > > > strick
> > > > >> >> mode.
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> вт, 29 дек. 2020 г. в 19:32, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > >> >> [hidden email]>:
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> > Hi Mike,
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > Thanks for providing your feedback. Please see my comments
> > below.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > I would also encourage you to go through the IEP-54 [1] - it
> > has
> > > a
> > > > >> lot
> > > > >> >> of
> > > > >> >> > detail on the topic.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > [1]
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > -Val
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:22 PM Michael Cherkasov <
> > > > >> >> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > > Hi all,
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > I reviewed the mail thread and proposal page and I still
> > don't
> > > > >> fully
> > > > >> >> > > understand what is going to be changed, I would really
> > > appreciate
> > > > >> it
> > > > >> >> if
> > > > >> >> > you
> > > > >> >> > > will answer a few questions:
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > 1. Are you going to leave only one schema per cache? if so,
> > > will
> > > > be
> > > > >> >> there
> > > > >> >> > > an option to have a table with arbitrary objects(pure KV
> > case)?
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > My opinion is that KV case should be natively supported. I
> > think
> > > > this
> > > > >> >> still
> > > > >> >> > needs to be thought over, my current view on this is that we
> > > should
> > > > >> have
> > > > >> >> > separate APIs for KV and more generic storages. KV storage
> can
> > be
> > > > >> >> > implemented as a "table" with two BLOB fields where we will
> > store
> > > > >> >> > serialized key-value pairs. That would imply deserialization
> on
> > > > read,
> > > > >> >> but I
> > > > >> >> > believe this is OK for KV use cases. I'm happy to hear other
> > > ideas
> > > > >> >> though
> > > > >> >> > :)
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > > 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0 have to define
> schema?
> > > > >> >> > SchemaBuilder
> > > > >> >> > > and SQL only? Is there an option to put the schema
> definition
> > > to
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> >> > > configuration?(I really don't like this, I would prefer to
> > have
> > > > >> >> > > separate scripts to create schemas)
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > There will be no such thing as a static configuration in the
> > > first
> > > > >> >> place.
> > > > >> >> > Tables and schemas are created in runtime. Even if there is a
> > > file
> > > > >> >> provided
> > > > >> >> > on node startup, this file is only applied in the scope of
> the
> > > > >> 'start'
> > > > >> >> > operation. All configurations will be stored in a meta
> storage
> > > > >> >> available to
> > > > >> >> > all nodes, as opposed to individual files.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > > 3. Is there a way to change field type? if yes, can it be
> > done
> > > in
> > > > >> >> > runtime?
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > Absolutely! IEP-54 has a whole section about schema
> evolution.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > > 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going to be re-worked
> too,
> > is
> > > > >> there
> > > > >> >> any
> > > > >> >> > > IEP for this?
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > BinaryMarshaller as a tool for arbitrary object serialization
> > > will
> > > > be
> > > > >> >> gone,
> > > > >> >> > but we will reuse a lot of its concept to implement an
> internal
> > > > tuple
> > > > >> >> > serialization mechanism. IEP-54 has the description of the
> > > proposed
> > > > >> data
> > > > >> >> > format.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > > 5. I don't like automatic schema evaluation when a new
> field
> > is
> > > > >> added
> > > > >> >> > > automatically on record put, so is there a way to prohibit
> > this
> > > > >> >> behavior?
> > > > >> >> > >  I think all schema changes should be done only explicitly
> > > except
> > > > >> >> initial
> > > > >> >> > > schema creation.
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > The way I see it is that we should have two modes:
> schema-first
> > > and
> > > > >> >> > schema-last. Schema-first means exactly what you've
> described -
> > > > >> schemas
> > > > >> >> are
> > > > >> >> > defined and updated explicitly by the user. In the
> schema-last
> > > > mode,
> > > > >> >> > the user does not deal with schemas, as they are inferred
> from
> > > the
> > > > >> data
> > > > >> >> > inserted into tables. We should definitely not mix these
> modes
> > -
> > > it
> > > > >> has
> > > > >> >> to
> > > > >> >> > be one or another. And it probably makes sense to discuss
> which
> > > > mode
> > > > >> >> should
> > > > >> >> > be the default one.
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > Thanks,
> > > > >> >> > > Mike.
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > >> >> > [hidden email]
> > > > >> >> > > >:
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > > Hi, Igniters.
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > We all know that the current QueryEntity API is not
> > > convenient
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> >> > needs
> > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > be reworked.
> > > > >> >> > > > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema configuration
> > public
> > > > API
> > > > >> >> for
> > > > >> >> > > > Ignite 3.0.
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > New schema configuration uses Builder pattern, which
> looks
> > > more
> > > > >> >> > > comfortable
> > > > >> >> > > > to use.
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package with the API
> > > itself,
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> >> a
> > > > >> >> > > draft
> > > > >> >> > > > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
> > > > >> >> > > > and a test that demonstrates how the API could be used.
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > Please note:
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with static
> factory
> > > > >> methods.
> > > > >> >> > > > * The implementation is decoupled and can be easily
> > extracted
> > > > to
> > > > >> >> > separate
> > > > >> >> > > > module if we decide to do so.
> > > > >> >> > > > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are missed, they
> will
> > > be
> > > > >> added
> > > > >> >> > > lately
> > > > >> >> > > > in separate tickes.
> > > > >> >> > > > * Index configuration extends marker interface that makes
> > > > >> possible
> > > > >> >> to
> > > > >> >> > > > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
> > > > >> >> > > > Hopfully, we could add a persistent geo-indices support
> in
> > > > >> future.
> > > > >> >> > > > * Supposedly, current table schema can be changed via
> > > > >> builder-like
> > > > >> >> > > > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See
> > > > >> >> 'TableModificationBuilder'
> > > > >> >> > > for
> > > > >> >> > > > details.
> > > > >> >> > > > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have 'toBuilder()'
> > > converter
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> >> that
> > > > >> >> > > > purpose as it is a Schema Manager responsibility to
> create
> > > > >> mutator
> > > > >> >> > > objects
> > > > >> >> > > > from the current schema,
> > > > >> >> > > > but implementing the Schema manager is out of scope and
> > will
> > > be
> > > > >> >> > designed
> > > > >> >> > > > within the next task.
> > > > >> >> > > > * Interfaces implementations are out of scope. I did not
> > > intend
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> >> > merge
> > > > >> >> > > > them right now, but for test/demostration purposes.
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > It is NOT the final version and some may be changed
> before
> > > the
> > > > >> first
> > > > >> >> > > > release of course.
> > > > >> >> > > > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed with this
> > > approach
> > > > or
> > > > >> >> some
> > > > >> >> > > > issues should be resolved at first.
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > Any thoughts or objections?
> > > > >> >> > > > Are interfaces good enough to be merged within the
> current
> > > > >> ticket?
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <
> > > > >> [hidden email]>
> > > > >> >> > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types:
> > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
> > > > >> >> > > > > 2. It requires adding new types to the internal
> > > > representation,
> > > > >> >> > > protocol,
> > > > >> >> > > > > e.t.c.
> > > > >> >> > > > > 3. internal representation should be the same as we
> keep
> > > sign
> > > > >> >> types.
> > > > >> >> > So
> > > > >> >> > > > it
> > > > >> >> > > > > will not requires more memory
> > > > >> >> > > > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such types for
> > > platforms
> > > > >> >> which
> > > > >> >> > not
> > > > >> >> > > > > support unsigned types. For example, a user could
> derive
> > -6
> > > > >> value
> > > > >> >> in
> > > > >> >> > > Java
> > > > >> >> > > > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits perspective will
> > be
> > > > >> >> right). I
> > > > >> >> > > > think
> > > > >> >> > > > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such cases,
> > especially
> > > it
> > > > >> >> will be
> > > > >> >> > > bad
> > > > >> >> > > > > for unsigned long when we require returns BigInteger
> > type.
> > > > >> >> > > > > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix for new
> types
> > > > like
> > > > >> a
> > > > >> >> > > '250u' -
> > > > >> >> > > > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
> > > > >> >> > > > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive comparison
> > logic
> > > > for
> > > > >> >> > indexes
> > > > >> >> > > > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for expressions. I
> > > think
> > > > it
> > > > >> >> not
> > > > >> >> > > > > possible for the current H2 engine and probably
> possible
> > > for
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> >> new
> > > > >> >> > > > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from anybody who
> > > involved
> > > > in
> > > > >> >> this
> > > > >> >> > > part
> > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > WDYT?
> > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > >> >> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > >> >> > > > > >:
> > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0: once we
> > the
> > > > >> actual
> > > > >> >> > type
> > > > >> >> > > > > > information, we can make proper runtime adjustments
> and
> > > > >> >> conversions
> > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will be just a
> bit
> > > more
> > > > >> >> > > expensive.
> > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > >> >> [hidden email]
> > > > >> >> > >:
> > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
> > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons and so
> on
> > > are
> > > > >> >> broken
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned this
> > > > somewhere
> > > > >> >> > above.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document that SQL is
> not
> > > > >> >> supported
> > > > >> >> > on
> > > > >> >> > > > > those
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > types,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > end of story.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable request. I
> > > thought
> > > > >> about
> > > > >> >> > this
> > > > >> >> > > > > when
> > > > >> >> > > > > > I
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add these
> > > types
> > > > >> right
> > > > >> >> > > away.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the
> > beginning
> > > > with
> > > > >> >> .NET
> > > > >> >> > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > C++
> > > > >> >> > > > > > :)
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually works as
> > > expected,
> > > > it
> > > > >> >> needs
> > > > >> >> > > > some
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns are false):
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - It's true that equality check works
> properly,
> > > but
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> >> SQL
> > > > >> >> > > > range
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    queries it will break unless some special care
> > is
> > > > >> taken
> > > > >> >> on
> > > > >> >> > > Java
> > > > >> >> > > > > > side:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > for
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will be
> > > converted
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> >> -1,
> > > > >> >> > > > which
> > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we don't have
> > unsigned
> > > > >> types
> > > > >> >> > now,
> > > > >> >> > > I
> > > > >> >> > > > > > doubt
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > it
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    works.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - There is an obvious cross-platform data loss
> > > when
> > > > >> >> > > "intuitive"
> > > > >> >> > > > > type
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8 corresponds to
> > byte
> > > > >> type in
> > > > >> >> > > .NET,
> > > > >> >> > > > > but
> > > > >> >> > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have to use
> short
> > > > type
> > > > >> in
> > > > >> >> > Java,
> > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    will also need to take care of the range check
> > > > during
> > > > >> >> > > > > > serialization).
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > I
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    think we can even allow to try to deserialize
> a
> > > > value
> > > > >> >> into
> > > > >> >> > > > > arbitrary
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > type,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    but throw an exception if the range is out of
> > > > bounds.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once all the
> > > > details
> > > > >> >> are
> > > > >> >> > > > settled
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > here?
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't be
> > treated
> > > > >> >> correctly
> > > > >> >> > > for
> > > > >> >> > > > > now
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I think we could make "true" support for
> unsigned
> > > > >> types,
> > > > >> >> but
> > > > >> >> > > they
> > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map uint64 to
> > > Java
> > > > >> long
> > > > >> >> > > > > primitive,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > but
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > BigInteger only.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64 to Java
> > long,
> > > > but
> > > > >> >> treat
> > > > >> >> > > > > negative
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > values in a different way to preserve correct
> > > > ordering.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > These limitations will affect only mixed
> > > environments
> > > > >> when
> > > > >> >> > .Net
> > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > Java
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > used to access the data.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Will this solution address your issues?
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel Tupitsyn
> <
> > > > >> >> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the
> > > beginning
> > > > >> with
> > > > >> >> > .NET
> > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > C++
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > :)
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as cache keys
> > and
> > > > >> >> values,
> > > > >> >> > as
> > > > >> >> > > > > fields
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > properties,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y
> clauses)
> > -
> > > it
> > > > >> >> works
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > transparently
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the users.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats those
> values
> > > as
> > > > >> >> > > > corresponding
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > signed
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in some cases
> > > only
> > > > >> >> because
> > > > >> >> > > > there
> > > > >> >> > > > > > are
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > no
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very simple
> change
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > protocol
> > > > >> >> > > > -
> > > > >> >> > > > > > add
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > type
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as signed
> > > > >> >> counterparts.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey
> > Mashenkov
> > > <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise
> > > > >> representation
> > > > >> >> is
> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > same)
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a uByte
> > > field
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> >> map
> > > > >> >> > it
> > > > >> >> > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > 'uint8'
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > column.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to "250" and
> put
> > > the
> > > > >> >> object
> > > > >> >> > > > into a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > table,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a single byte
> > > > 'int8'
> > > > >> >> > column.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it to
> > > directly
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> >> Java
> > > > >> >> > > > > object
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > field
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8 type to
> > > Java
> > > > >> >> 'short'
> > > > >> >> > > type
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > because the one expected to see "250" as a
> > > value
> > > > >> which
> > > > >> >> > > > doesn't
> > > > >> >> > > > > > fit
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > signed type.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a BigInteger
> > field
> > > in
> > > > >> >> Java.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat column value
> as
> > > Java
> > > > >> >> 'byte'
> > > > >> >> > as
> > > > >> >> > > > is,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > because
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a negative
> value,
> > so
> > > > it
> > > > >> >> should
> > > > >> >> > > be
> > > > >> >> > > > > cast
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > short
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger for
> > uint64)
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will require a
> > > different
> > > > >> >> > > comparator.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel
> > Tupitsyn
> > > <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a good
> > idea.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the simple
> > > > approach
> > > > >> I
> > > > >> >> > > > described?
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrey
> > > > Mashenkov
> > > > >> <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing range for
> > > > unsigned
> > > > >> >> types
> > > > >> >> > > > then
> > > > >> >> > > > > we
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > could
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > add a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on schema
> > > level
> > > > >> >> (like
> > > > >> >> > > > > > nullability
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > flag)
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types in
> > storage.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate storage
> > > > >> type-system
> > > > >> >> and
> > > > >> >> > > > binary
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > protocol
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of type will
> > > match
> > > > 1
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> >> 1
> > > > >> >> > > with
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > storage
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (native)
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either have a
> > > separate
> > > > >> type
> > > > >> >> id
> > > > >> >> > or
> > > > >> >> > > > > treat
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > serialized
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed or
> > > unsigned
> > > > >> >> flag).
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever foresee the
> > > > >> >> consequences
> > > > >> >> > of
> > > > >> >> > > > > using
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned types
> > > > perfectly
> > > > >> >> works
> > > > >> >> > > > with
> > > > >> >> > > > > > some
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > database,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite successor
> > > > confession
> > > > >> >> with
> > > > >> >> > our
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > "native"
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he can use the
> > > power
> > > > >> of
> > > > >> >> > Ignite
> > > > >> >> > > > > > Compute
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either fail to
> use
> > > his
> > > > >> >> > unsigned
> > > > >> >> > > > data
> > > > >> >> > > > > > on
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Java
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > due
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due to natural
> > Java
> > > > >> type
> > > > >> >> > system
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > limitations
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively supported types
> > > with
> > > > >> >> possible
> > > > >> >> > > > value
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > ranges
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is what trade-off
> > we
> > > > >> found
> > > > >> >> > > > > acceptable:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > narrowing
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use types of
> wider
> > > > >> range on
> > > > >> >> > > > systems
> > > > >> >> > > > > > like
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Java.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor
> > > Sapego <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so hard
> to
> > > > >> implement
> > > > >> >> > > > > comparison
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > of
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not seem
> > to
> > > > be a
> > > > >> >> big
> > > > >> >> > > issue
> > > > >> >> > > > > > from
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > my
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned types
> from
> > > > Java
> > > > >> - I
> > > > >> >> > > think,
> > > > >> >> > > > > if
> > > > >> >> > > > > > a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > user
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to interact
> > with
> > > > it
> > > > >> >> from
> > > > >> >> > > Java
> > > > >> >> > > > he
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > knows
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > he
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from
> platforms
> > > > where
> > > > >> >> they
> > > > >> >> > > have
> > > > >> >> > > > > > native
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > widely
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where
> users
> > > > >> currently
> > > > >> >> > have
> > > > >> >> > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > make a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > manual
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > casting
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using unsigned
> types
> > > when
> > > > >> they
> > > > >> >> > use
> > > > >> >> > > > > > Ignite.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM Pavel
> > > > >> Tupitsyn <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for those
> > types
> > > > >> >> > (basically,
> > > > >> >> > > > just
> > > > >> >> > > > > > add
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > more
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java
> > (bitwise
> > > > >> >> > > representation
> > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > same)
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned
> > > integers,
> > > > >> so
> > > > >> >> we
> > > > >> >> > can
> > > > >> >> > > > > > simply
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > say
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative comparison
> is
> > > not
> > > > >> >> > supported
> > > > >> >> > > > in
> > > > >> >> > > > > > SQL
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (equality
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM
> > Andrey
> > > > >> >> Mashenkov
> > > > >> >> > <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have i8 or
> > int8
> > > > >> >> instead of
> > > > >> >> > > > > > Integer.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't address
> the
> > > > issue.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types should be
> > > > portable
> > > > >> >> > across
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > different
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > systems
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type support.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is that
> > unsigned
> > > > >> types
> > > > >> >> > cover
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > different
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > ranges.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to
> introduce a
> > > > >> uLong.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big deal
> to
> > > add
> > > > >> uLong
> > > > >> >> > type
> > > > >> >> > > > > > support
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > at
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > storage
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and then
> > use
> > > it
> > > > >> in
> > > > >> >> e.g.
> > > > >> >> > > > .Net
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > only.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support it in
> e.g.
> > > > Java?
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range is
> > > about
> > > > >> >> (2^-63
> > > > >> >> > ..
> > > > >> >> > > > > 2^63)
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > range
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to
> restrict
> > > > range
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> >> (0
> > > > >> >> > ..
> > > > >> >> > > > > > 2^63).
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > This
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but
> > doesn't
> > > > look
> > > > >> >> like
> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > >> >> > > > > 'real'
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse when the
> > > user
> > > > >> will
> > > > >> >> use
> > > > >> >> > > > > uByte,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > as
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > limitation
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map
> > unsigned
> > > > >> types
> > > > >> >> to a
> > > > >> >> > > > type
> > > > >> >> > > > > of
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > wider
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative values.
> > > E.g.
> > > > >> >> uLong to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > BigInteger.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive Java
> > type
> > > > for
> > > > >> >> Long
> > > > >> >> > > here.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > However,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > still
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8
> bytes,
> > > but
> > > > >> >> have a
> > > > >> >> > > > > special
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > comparator
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid unwanted
> > > > >> >> > deserialization.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM
> > Pavel
> > > > >> >> Tupitsyn
> > > > >> >> > <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of "long,
> > > short,
> > > > >> >> byte"
> > > > >> >> > in
> > > > >> >> > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > protocol
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style, which is
> > > > concise
> > > > >> >> and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > unambiguous:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM
> > > Igor
> > > > >> >> Sapego <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support that. Also,
> > if
> > > we
> > > > >> are
> > > > >> >> > > aiming
> > > > >> >> > > > > for
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger
> platform-independance,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may want to
> > > > support
> > > > >> >> > > > > bit-notation
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (int32,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a different
> > type
> > > on
> > > > >> >> > different
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > platforms
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often when
> using
> > > ODBC
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> >> > > > example).
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34
> PM
> > > > Pavel
> > > > >> >> > > Tupitsyn
> > > > >> >> > > > <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should support
> > > > unsigned
> > > > >> >> data
> > > > >> >> > > > types:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have them,
> but
> > > many
> > > > >> >> other
> > > > >> >> > > > > languages
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > do,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing number
> > of
> > > > thin
> > > > >> >> > clients
> > > > >> >> > > > > this
> > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in current
> > > > Ignite.NET
> > > > >> >> > > > > implementation
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > we
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > store
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain
> when
> > it
> > > > >> comes
> > > > >> >> to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > metadata,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > binary
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to deserialize
> > int
> > > as
> > > > >> uint
> > > > >> >> > when
> > > > >> >> > > > you
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > have
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > class,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
> 12:28
> > > PM
> > > > >> >> Andrey
> > > > >> >> > > > > > Mashenkov <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both
> > serializers
> > > > use
> > > > >> >> > > reflection
> > > > >> >> > > > > > API.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will allow
> > users
> > > to
> > > > >> >> > configure
> > > > >> >> > > > > > static
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > along
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still
> need
> > to
> > > > >> >> validate
> > > > >> >> > > user
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > classes
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > client
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in the
> > grid
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> >> > > > reflection
> > > > >> >> > > > > > API
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few
> articles
> > > on
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> >> > > internet
> > > > >> >> > > > > on
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > how
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task for
> > > > supporting
> > > > >> >> > > GraalVM,
> > > > >> >> > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > maybe
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM
> will
> > > > >> suggest a
> > > > >> >> > > > solution
> > > > >> >> > > > > > or
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proper
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is
> found,
> > we
> > > > >> could
> > > > >> >> > allow
> > > > >> >> > > > > users
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > write
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > own
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I don't
> > think
> > > > it
> > > > >> is
> > > > >> >> a
> > > > >> >> > > good
> > > > >> >> > > > > idea
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > expose
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the public.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
> > 2:55
> > > AM
> > > > >> >> Denis
> > > > >> >> > > > Magda <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the
> > > > update,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the
> > serializers
> > > > >> take
> > > > >> >> into
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > consideration
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native-image-generation
> > > > >> feature of
> > > > >> >> > > > GraalVM?
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current binary
> > > > >> >> marshaller,
> > > > >> >> > we
> > > > >> >> > > > > can't
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > even
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > generate
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using our
> > thin
> > > > >> client
> > > > >> >> > > APIs.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at
> > > 4:39
> > > > AM
> > > > >> >> > Andrey
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to continue
> > > > >> discussion
> > > > >> >> of
> > > > >> >> > > > IEP-54
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who is
> > > > >> interested
> > > > >> >> > had a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > chance
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > get
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not
> hesitate
> > > to
> > > > >> ask
> > > > >> >> > > > questions
> > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > share
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a
> > prototype
> > > > of
> > > > >> >> > > serializer
> > > > >> >> > > > > [2]
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > for
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > data
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I
> compared
> > 2
> > > > >> >> approaches
> > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > (de)serialize
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java
> > > reflection/unsafe
> > > > >> API
> > > > >> >> and
> > > > >> >> > > > > similar
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > one
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second one
> > > > generates
> > > > >> >> > > serializer
> > > > >> >> > > > > for
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library for
> > > > >> compilation.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows
> better
> > > > >> results
> > > > >> >> in
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > benchmarks.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go
> with
> > it
> > > > as
> > > > >> >> > default
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > serializer
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation as a
> > > > fallback
> > > > >> if
> > > > >> >> > > someone
> > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of
> > > tasks
> > > > >> >> under
> > > > >> >> > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > umbrella
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ticket
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to
> > create
> > > > more
> > > > >> >> > tickets
> > > > >> >> > > > for
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > schema
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > manager
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation, but
> > would
> > > > >> like
> > > > >> >> to
> > > > >> >> > > > clarify
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > some
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > details.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought
> schemaManager
> > > on
> > > > >> each
> > > > >> >> > node
> > > > >> >> > > > > should
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > held:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping of
> > > > "schema
> > > > >> >> > > version"
> > > > >> >> > > > > <-->
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > validated
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide
> > schema
> > > > >> changes
> > > > >> >> > > > history.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client side.
> > > Before
> > > > >> any
> > > > >> >> > > > key-value
> > > > >> >> > > > > > API
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > operation
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a given
> > > > key-value
> > > > >> >> pair.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no
> > > > local-mapping
> > > > >> >> exists
> > > > >> >> > > > for a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > given
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema
> > has a
> > > > >> more
> > > > >> >> > recent
> > > > >> >> > > > > > version
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be validated
> > > against
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> >> > > latest
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > version
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object doesn't
> > fit
> > > to
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> >> > > latest
> > > > >> >> > > > > > schema
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > depends
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail the
> > > > >> operation
> > > > >> >> > > > ('strict'
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > mode)
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a new
> > schema
> > > > >> version
> > > > >> >> > > should
> > > > >> >> > > > > be
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > propagated
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server side we
> > > > usually
> > > > >> >> have
> > > > >> >> > no
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > key-value
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > classes
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change
> > history
> > > is
> > > > >> >> > available
> > > > >> >> > > > > and a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > tuple
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to
> > upgrade
> > > > any
> > > > >> >> > > received
> > > > >> >> > > > > > tuple
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > last
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow
> > nodes
> > > > to
> > > > >> >> send
> > > > >> >> > > > > key-value
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > pairs
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't receive a
> > > > schema
> > > > >> >> update
> > > > >> >> > > > yet)
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > without
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > reverting
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node with
> > newer
> > > > >> >> classes.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did
> you
> > > > mean
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> >> > > same?
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >>
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020
> at
> > > > 9:21
> > > > >> AM
> > > > >> >> > Ivan
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not
> ignore
> > > > >> history.
> > > > >> >> We
> > > > >> >> > > had
> > > > >> >> > > > a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > thread
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can
> resume
> > > it.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08
> > > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > >> >> Denis
> > > > >> >> > > > Magda
> > > > >> >> > > > > <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense,
> > > > thanks
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> >> > > > > > explaining.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we
> need
> > to
> > > > >> have a
> > > > >> >> > > > separate
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms
> > > > >> substitution.
> > > > >> >> > I'll
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > appreciate
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing pointers
> to
> > > any
> > > > >> >> > relevant
> > > > >> >> > > > IEPs
> > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > reasoning
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8,
> 2020
> > > at
> > > > >> 6:01
> > > > >> >> PM
> > > > >> >> > > > > Valentin
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> [hidden email]>
> > > > >> >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the
> > wording
> > > in
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> >> IEP
> > > > >> >> > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > little
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > bit
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you should
> > not
> > > > >> create
> > > > >> >> > > nested
> > > > >> >> > > > > > POJOs,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > but
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO that
> > is
> > > > >> mapped
> > > > >> >> to
> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > particular
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not
> > > > supported.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this
> > > correct?
> > > > >> >> Please
> > > > >> >> > > let
> > > > >> >> > > > me
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > know
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > if
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the
> "cache"
> > > > >> term, I
> > > > >> >> > agree
> > > > >> >> > > > > that
> > > > >> >> > > > > > it
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can
> > replace
> > > it
> > > > >> >> with.
> > > > >> >> > > > "Table"
> > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > tightly
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional
> in
> > > our
> > > > >> >> case.
> > > > >> >> > Do
> > > > >> >> > > > you
> > > > >> >> > > > > > want
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > create a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8,
> > 2020
> > > at
> > > > >> >> 4:37 PM
> > > > >> >> > > > Denis
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked
> the
> > > IEP
> > > > >> again
> > > > >> >> > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > have a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > few
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > questions.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary
> nested
> > > > >> objects
> > > > >> >> and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > collections
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs
> > > should
> > > > >> >> either
> > > > >> >> > be
> > > > >> >> > > > > > inlined
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > into
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you
> > provide a
> > > > DDL
> > > > >> >> code
> > > > >> >> > > > > snippet
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > showing
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to
> work?
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep
> > using
> > > > the
> > > > >> >> terms
> > > > >> >> > > > > "cache"
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right time
> to
> > > > >> discuss
> > > > >> >> an
> > > > >> >> > > > > > alternate
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > name
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the
> > > > "table"
> > > > >> >> > should
> > > > >> >> > > > stay
> > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > >> >> > primary
> > > > >> >> > > > APIs
> > > > >> >> > > > > > in
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7,
> > 2020
> > > > at
> > > > >> >> 12:26
> > > > >> >> > PM
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> >> > [hidden email]>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your
> > > point. I
> > > > >> >> agree
> > > > >> >> > > that
> > > > >> >> > > > > with
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > automatic
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last
> > > > >> territory.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if
> we
> > > > >> support
> > > > >> >> > > > automatic
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > evolution,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a
> > cache
> > > > >> without
> > > > >> >> > > schema
> > > > >> >> > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > inferring
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other words,
> we
> > > can
> > > > >> have
> > > > >> >> > both
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what
> do
> > > you
> > > > >> >> think?
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep
> 7,
> > > 2020
> > > > >> at
> > > > >> >> 5:59
> > > > >> >> > > AM
> > > > >> >> > > > > > Alexey
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> >> [hidden email]
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you,
> I
> > > got
> > > > >> your
> > > > >> >> > > concern
> > > > >> >> > > > > > now.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > As
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> terminology,
> > I
> > > am
> > > > >> >> > > absolutely
> > > > >> >> > > > > fine
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the
> approach
> > > > best.
> > > > >> >> > Dynamic
> > > > >> >> > > or
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > evolving
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> corresponding
> > > > >> changes
> > > > >> >> to
> > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > IEP
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > once
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > settle
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент.
> > > 2020
> > > > >> г. в
> > > > >> >> > > 11:33,
> > > > >> >> > > > > Ivan
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you
> > for
> > > > >> your
> > > > >> >> > > answer!
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My
> > > > understanding
> > > > >> is
> > > > >> >> a
> > > > >> >> > > > little
> > > > >> >> > > > > > bit
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > different.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> definitely
> > > > >> should be
> > > > >> >> > > > > possible.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > But
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > see
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > main
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is
> > > > >> updated".
> > > > >> >> I
> > > > >> >> > > > treat a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > common
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data
> > > > >> >> manipulation
> > > > >> >> > > > > > operations
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > are
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > clearly
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> interesting
> > > > >> >> > capabilities,
> > > > >> >> > > > > e.g.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > preventing
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken
> > data
> > > > >> >> > operations,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > restricting
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > Schema-first
> > > > >> means
> > > > >> >> > that
> > > > >> >> > > > > > schema
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > exists
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > compliant
> > > > with
> > > > >> >> it -
> > > > >> >> > > > that's
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A
> > schema-last
> > > > >> >> approach
> > > > >> >> > > > > > mentioned
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > in
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists,
> but
> > > it
> > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > inferred
> > > > >> >> > > > > from
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > data.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing
> > > > >> approach?
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I
> would
> > > > like
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> >> > say,
> > > > >> >> > > > that
> > > > >> >> > > > > > my
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > main
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > terminology.
> > > > And
> > > > >> I
> > > > >> >> > > suppose
> > > > >> >> > > > if
> > > > >> >> > > > > > it
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > confuses
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused
> as
> > > > >> well. My
> > > > >> >> > > > feeling
> > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > closer
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving
> > > > schema".
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> 2020-09-07
> > > 0:47
> > > > >> >> > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > >> >> > > > > > >:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi
> Ivan,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't
> > see
> > > > an
> > > > >> >> issue
> > > > >> >> > > with
> > > > >> >> > > > > > that.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance
> > and
> > > > all
> > > > >> >> the
> > > > >> >> > > > stored
> > > > >> >> > > > > > data
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > compliant
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is
> > > proposed.
> > > > >> There
> > > > >> >> > are
> > > > >> >> > > no
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > restrictions
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat,
> > Sep
> > > > 5,
> > > > >> >> 2020
> > > > >> >> > at
> > > > >> >> > > > 9:52
> > > > >> >> > > > > > PM
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ivan
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> Alexey,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a
> > > > little
> > > > >> bit
> > > > >> >> > > > confused
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > with
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a
> > > survey
> > > > >> [1]
> > > > >> >> (see
> > > > >> >> > > > part
> > > > >> >> > > > > X
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > Semi
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Structured
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a
> > "dynamic
> > > > >> >> schema"
> > > > >> >> > > > > approach
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > as a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > kind
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > 2020-09-02
> > > > >> 1:53
> > > > >> >> > > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > However,
> > > > >> could
> > > > >> >> > you
> > > > >> >> > > > > please
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> ORM?
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is
> > > there
> > > > a
> > > > >> use
> > > > >> >> > case
> > > > >> >> > > > for
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> seen
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one
> > so
> > > > >> far)?
> > > > >> >> If
> > > > >> >> > so,
> > > > >> >> > > > > what
> > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> support
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> this?
> > > In
> > > > my
> > > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am
> I
> > > > >> missing
> > > > >> >> > > > something?
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good
> > > > point,
> > > > >> >> yes,
> > > > >> >> > if
> > > > >> >> > > > all
> > > > >> >> > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > ORM
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > internally,
> > > > >> >> then
> > > > >> >> > > they
> > > > >> >> > > > > can
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > easily
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > translate
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >> INSERT/UPDATE
> > > > >> >> > > > statement
> > > > >> >> > > > > > that
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > lists
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> Spring
> > > > Data
> > > > >> >> > > > integration
> > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > already
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > based
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> needs
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to
> be
> > > > >> improved
> > > > >> >> > once
> > > > >> >> > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> solve
> > a
> > > > ton
> > > > >> of
> > > > >> >> > > > usability
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > issues.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I
> > would
> > > > >> revise
> > > > >> >> the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> phase.
> > > > Can't
> > > > >> >> say
> > > > >> >> > if
> > > > >> >> > > > it's
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > used
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > lot
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > getting
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> sure.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > @Michael
> > > > >> >> Pollind,
> > > > >> >> > > I'll
> > > > >> >> > > > > > loop
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > you
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > long
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> Ignite
> > > > >> support
> > > > >> >> for
> > > > >> >> > > > > > Micornaut
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> >>
> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came
> > > > across
> > > > >> >> some
> > > > >> >> > > > > > challenges.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Just
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > watch
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> That's
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> coming
> > > in
> > > > >> >> Ignite
> > > > >> >> > > 3.0.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> Denis
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On
> > Mon,
> > > > Aug
> > > > >> 31,
> > > > >> >> > 2020
> > > > >> >> > > > at
> > > > >> >> > > > > > 5:11
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi
> > > Denis,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > Generally
> > > > >> >> > > speaking, I
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > believe
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > addresses
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> >> > issue
> > > > >> >> > > > if
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > duplicate
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> because
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > schema
> > > > >> will be
> > > > >> >> > > > created
> > > > >> >> > > > > > for
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > cache,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > Basically,
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> >> > > schema
> > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > define
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > whether
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> not,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > which
> > > > >> >> fields
> > > > >> >> > > are
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > included
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> have
> > > must
> > > > >> be
> > > > >> >> > > > compliant
> > > > >> >> > > > > > with
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > this,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> with
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> data
> > as
> > > > >> with a
> > > > >> >> > set
> > > > >> >> > > of
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > records,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > However,
> > > > >> could
> > > > >> >> > you
> > > > >> >> > > > > please
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> ORM?
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is
> > > there
> > > > a
> > > > >> use
> > > > >> >> > case
> > > > >> >> > > > for
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> seen
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one
> > so
> > > > >> far)?
> > > > >> >> If
> > > > >> >> > so,
> > > > >> >> > > > > what
> > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> support
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> this?
> > > In
> > > > my
> > > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am
> I
> > > > >> missing
> > > > >> >> > > > something?
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> -Val
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On
> > Mon,
> > > > Aug
> > > > >> >> 31,
> > > > >> >> > > 2020
> > > > >> >> > > > at
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > 2:08
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > [hidden email]>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > Val,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I
> > > would
> > > > >> >> propose
> > > > >> >> > > > > adding
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > another
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > point
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > list
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > related
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> >> the
> > > > >> >> > > ORM
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > frameworks
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > Micronaut
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > many
> > > > >> others.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> Presently,
> > > > >> >> the
> > > > >> >> > > > > storage
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > engine
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requires
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > from
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > value
> > > > >> ones
> > > > >> >> that
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > complicate
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> frameworks
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> (especially
> > > > >> >> if
> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > >> >> > > > key
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > object
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > comprises
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > More
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > found
> > > > >> here:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> It
> > > will
> > > > >> be
> > > > >> >> nice
> > > > >> >> > > if
> > > > >> >> > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > new
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > single
> > > > >> >> entity
> > > > >> >> > > > object
> > > > >> >> > > > > > when
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > comes
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > split
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > entity
> > > > >> into
> > > > >> >> a
> > > > >> >> > key
> > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > value.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Just
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> 3.0
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> has
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> all
> > > the
> > > > >> >> > essential
> > > > >> >> > > > > > public
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > APIs
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> single-entity
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > based
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > approach.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > What
> > > do
> > > > >> you
> > > > >> >> > > think?
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > -
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > Denis
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> On
> > > Fri,
> > > > >> Aug
> > > > >> >> 28,
> > > > >> >> > > > 2020
> > > > >> >> > > > > at
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > 3:50
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > PM
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> Igniters,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > One
> > > > of
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> >> > big
> > > > >> >> > > > > > changes
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proposed
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> "schema-first
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > approach".
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > To
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > started
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > the
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> IEP
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > for
> > > > >> this
> > > > >> >> > > change:
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > Please
> > > > >> >> take a
> > > > >> >> > > > look
> > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > let
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > me
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> thoughts,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> suggestions,
> > > > >> >> > or
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > objections.
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > -Val
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best
> > > > regards,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan
> > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best
> > regards,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan
> > > Pavlukhin
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > > --
> > > > >> >> > > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > > > --
> > > > >> >> > > > Best regards,
> > > > >> >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >
>

--
Best regards,
Andrey V. Mashenkov

[Pavel Tupitsyn]

I see, thanks.

Let's discuss the return type - Future is not the one to use.
We should return CompletionStage, CompletableFuture, or introduce our own
interface.
We agreed on the last one (custom interface) for thin clients:
http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/IEP-51-Java-Thin-Client-Async-API-td48900.html

I believe that for Ignite 3.0 we should have the following:
public interface IgniteFuture<T> extends Future<T>, CompletionStage<T> {
    // No-op.
}

Thoughts?


On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:16 AM Andrey Mashenkov <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Pavel,
> There are 2 PR's for the ticket[1] with two different APIs  suggested.
> Please, take a look at PR [2].
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14035
> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/69
>
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:11 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Andrey, I can't find any async methods,
> > can you please check if the changes are pushed?
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 10:06 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Pavel, good point.
> > > Thanks. I've added async methods.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 2:29 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Andrey,
> > > >
> > > > What about corresponding async APIs, do we add them now or later?
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 8:11 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Igniters.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've created a PR for Table access API [1].
> > > > > This is an initial version. So, any suggestions\objections are
> > > welcomed.
> > > > > Please, do not hesitate to write your comments and\or examples to
> the
> > > PR.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ignite-api module contains API classes, e.g. TableView classes as
> > > > > projections for a table for different purposes.
> > > > > Ignite-table contains dummy implementation and Example class
> > explained
> > > > how
> > > > > it is supposed to be used.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, I'm still waiting for any feedback for Schema configuration
> > > public
> > > > > API PR [2].
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/33
> > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:05 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've updated a PR regarding your feedback [1].
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:58 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Folks,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I updated the IEP to contain the missing pieces; actually, most
> of
> > > the
> > > > > >> questions here were covered by the text. Please let me know if
> > there
> > > > is
> > > > > >> something still missing or unclear.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> чт, 31 дек. 2020 г. в 12:48, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >> >:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > Mikhail and Igniters,
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Thanks for your comments. The questions are reasonable,
> though I
> > > > think
> > > > > >> all
> > > > > >> > concerns are addressed by the IEP as Val mentioned. I will
> > update
> > > > the
> > > > > >> > document according to your questions in the following week or
> > so,
> > > so
> > > > > we
> > > > > >> can
> > > > > >> > have a constructive discussion further.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > ср, 30 дек. 2020 г. в 11:45, Michael Cherkasov <
> > > > > >> > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> Hi Val, Andrey,
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> thank you for clarifying.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> I still have a few comments.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> 1. one table == one schema. KV vs SQL:
> > > > > >> >> Looks like all agreed that KV is just a special case of a
> > regular
> > > > > table
> > > > > >> >> with (blob,blob) schema.
> > > > > >> >> I worry about the case when the user starts from KV case and
> > > later
> > > > > will
> > > > > >> >> try
> > > > > >> >> to expand it and try to leverage SQL for the existing KV
> table
> > it
> > > > > >> won't be
> > > > > >> >> able to do so and will require to reload data. which isn't
> > > > convenient
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> >> sometimes not even possible. Is it possible to extract a new
> > > field
> > > > > from
> > > > > >> >> (blob, blob) schema and apply index on it?
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> 2. Could you please also list all ways of schema definition
> in
> > > the
> > > > > >> IEP? It
> > > > > >> >> significant change and I bet the main point of this IEP,
> > everyone
> > > > > hates
> > > > > >> >> QueryEntities, they are difficult to manage and in general,
> > it's
> > > > very
> > > > > >> >> confusing to have a data model(schemas) and node/cluster
> > > > > configuration
> > > > > >> in
> > > > > >> >> one place.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> So there will be SchemaBuilder and SQL to define schemas, but
> > > > Andrey
> > > > > >> also
> > > > > >> >> mentioned annotations.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> I personally against configuration via annotations, while
> it's
> > > > > >> convenient
> > > > > >> >> for development, it difficult to manage because different
> > classes
> > > > can
> > > > > >> be
> > > > > >> >> deployed on different clients/servers nodes and it can lead
> to
> > > > > >> >> unpredictable results.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> 3. IEP doesn't mention field type changes, only drop/add
> > fields.
> > > > > Field
> > > > > >> >> type
> > > > > >> >> changes are extremely painful right now(if even possible), so
> > it
> > > > > would
> > > > > >> be
> > > > > >> >> nice if some scenarios would be supported(like int8->int16,
> or
> > > > > >> >> int8->String).
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> 4. got it, I thought IEP will have more details about the
> > > > > >> implementation.
> > > > > >> >> I've seen Andrey even sent benchmark results for a new
> > > > serialization,
> > > > > >> will
> > > > > >> >> ping him about this.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> 5. Thanks for the clarification. I had a wrong understanding
> of
> > > > > strick
> > > > > >> >> mode.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> вт, 29 дек. 2020 г. в 19:32, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > >> >> [hidden email]>:
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> > Hi Mike,
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > Thanks for providing your feedback. Please see my comments
> > > below.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > I would also encourage you to go through the IEP-54 [1] -
> it
> > > has
> > > > a
> > > > > >> lot
> > > > > >> >> of
> > > > > >> >> > detail on the topic.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > [1]
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > -Val
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:22 PM Michael Cherkasov <
> > > > > >> >> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > Hi all,
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > I reviewed the mail thread and proposal page and I still
> > > don't
> > > > > >> fully
> > > > > >> >> > > understand what is going to be changed, I would really
> > > > appreciate
> > > > > >> it
> > > > > >> >> if
> > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > >> >> > > will answer a few questions:
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > 1. Are you going to leave only one schema per cache? if
> so,
> > > > will
> > > > > be
> > > > > >> >> there
> > > > > >> >> > > an option to have a table with arbitrary objects(pure KV
> > > case)?
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > My opinion is that KV case should be natively supported. I
> > > think
> > > > > this
> > > > > >> >> still
> > > > > >> >> > needs to be thought over, my current view on this is that
> we
> > > > should
> > > > > >> have
> > > > > >> >> > separate APIs for KV and more generic storages. KV storage
> > can
> > > be
> > > > > >> >> > implemented as a "table" with two BLOB fields where we will
> > > store
> > > > > >> >> > serialized key-value pairs. That would imply
> deserialization
> > on
> > > > > read,
> > > > > >> >> but I
> > > > > >> >> > believe this is OK for KV use cases. I'm happy to hear
> other
> > > > ideas
> > > > > >> >> though
> > > > > >> >> > :)
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0 have to define
> > schema?
> > > > > >> >> > SchemaBuilder
> > > > > >> >> > > and SQL only? Is there an option to put the schema
> > definition
> > > > to
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> >> > > configuration?(I really don't like this, I would prefer
> to
> > > have
> > > > > >> >> > > separate scripts to create schemas)
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > There will be no such thing as a static configuration in
> the
> > > > first
> > > > > >> >> place.
> > > > > >> >> > Tables and schemas are created in runtime. Even if there
> is a
> > > > file
> > > > > >> >> provided
> > > > > >> >> > on node startup, this file is only applied in the scope of
> > the
> > > > > >> 'start'
> > > > > >> >> > operation. All configurations will be stored in a meta
> > storage
> > > > > >> >> available to
> > > > > >> >> > all nodes, as opposed to individual files.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > 3. Is there a way to change field type? if yes, can it be
> > > done
> > > > in
> > > > > >> >> > runtime?
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > Absolutely! IEP-54 has a whole section about schema
> > evolution.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going to be re-worked
> > too,
> > > is
> > > > > >> there
> > > > > >> >> any
> > > > > >> >> > > IEP for this?
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > BinaryMarshaller as a tool for arbitrary object
> serialization
> > > > will
> > > > > be
> > > > > >> >> gone,
> > > > > >> >> > but we will reuse a lot of its concept to implement an
> > internal
> > > > > tuple
> > > > > >> >> > serialization mechanism. IEP-54 has the description of the
> > > > proposed
> > > > > >> data
> > > > > >> >> > format.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > 5. I don't like automatic schema evaluation when a new
> > field
> > > is
> > > > > >> added
> > > > > >> >> > > automatically on record put, so is there a way to
> prohibit
> > > this
> > > > > >> >> behavior?
> > > > > >> >> > >  I think all schema changes should be done only
> explicitly
> > > > except
> > > > > >> >> initial
> > > > > >> >> > > schema creation.
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > The way I see it is that we should have two modes:
> > schema-first
> > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > schema-last. Schema-first means exactly what you've
> > described -
> > > > > >> schemas
> > > > > >> >> are
> > > > > >> >> > defined and updated explicitly by the user. In the
> > schema-last
> > > > > mode,
> > > > > >> >> > the user does not deal with schemas, as they are inferred
> > from
> > > > the
> > > > > >> data
> > > > > >> >> > inserted into tables. We should definitely not mix these
> > modes
> > > -
> > > > it
> > > > > >> has
> > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > >> >> > be one or another. And it probably makes sense to discuss
> > which
> > > > > mode
> > > > > >> >> should
> > > > > >> >> > be the default one.
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > Thanks,
> > > > > >> >> > > Mike.
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > >> >> > [hidden email]
> > > > > >> >> > > >:
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > Hi, Igniters.
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > We all know that the current QueryEntity API is not
> > > > convenient
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> >> > needs
> > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > be reworked.
> > > > > >> >> > > > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema configuration
> > > public
> > > > > API
> > > > > >> >> for
> > > > > >> >> > > > Ignite 3.0.
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > New schema configuration uses Builder pattern, which
> > looks
> > > > more
> > > > > >> >> > > comfortable
> > > > > >> >> > > > to use.
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package with the API
> > > > itself,
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> >> a
> > > > > >> >> > > draft
> > > > > >> >> > > > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
> > > > > >> >> > > > and a test that demonstrates how the API could be used.
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > Please note:
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with static
> > factory
> > > > > >> methods.
> > > > > >> >> > > > * The implementation is decoupled and can be easily
> > > extracted
> > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > separate
> > > > > >> >> > > > module if we decide to do so.
> > > > > >> >> > > > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are missed, they
> > will
> > > > be
> > > > > >> added
> > > > > >> >> > > lately
> > > > > >> >> > > > in separate tickes.
> > > > > >> >> > > > * Index configuration extends marker interface that
> makes
> > > > > >> possible
> > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > >> >> > > > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
> > > > > >> >> > > > Hopfully, we could add a persistent geo-indices support
> > in
> > > > > >> future.
> > > > > >> >> > > > * Supposedly, current table schema can be changed via
> > > > > >> builder-like
> > > > > >> >> > > > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See
> > > > > >> >> 'TableModificationBuilder'
> > > > > >> >> > > for
> > > > > >> >> > > > details.
> > > > > >> >> > > > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have 'toBuilder()'
> > > > converter
> > > > > >> for
> > > > > >> >> that
> > > > > >> >> > > > purpose as it is a Schema Manager responsibility to
> > create
> > > > > >> mutator
> > > > > >> >> > > objects
> > > > > >> >> > > > from the current schema,
> > > > > >> >> > > > but implementing the Schema manager is out of scope and
> > > will
> > > > be
> > > > > >> >> > designed
> > > > > >> >> > > > within the next task.
> > > > > >> >> > > > * Interfaces implementations are out of scope. I did
> not
> > > > intend
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> >> > merge
> > > > > >> >> > > > them right now, but for test/demostration purposes.
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > It is NOT the final version and some may be changed
> > before
> > > > the
> > > > > >> first
> > > > > >> >> > > > release of course.
> > > > > >> >> > > > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed with this
> > > > approach
> > > > > or
> > > > > >> >> some
> > > > > >> >> > > > issues should be resolved at first.
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > Any thoughts or objections?
> > > > > >> >> > > > Are interfaces good enough to be merged within the
> > current
> > > > > >> ticket?
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <
> > > > > >> [hidden email]>
> > > > > >> >> > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types:
> > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
> > > > > >> >> > > > > 2. It requires adding new types to the internal
> > > > > representation,
> > > > > >> >> > > protocol,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > e.t.c.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > 3. internal representation should be the same as we
> > keep
> > > > sign
> > > > > >> >> types.
> > > > > >> >> > So
> > > > > >> >> > > > it
> > > > > >> >> > > > > will not requires more memory
> > > > > >> >> > > > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such types for
> > > > platforms
> > > > > >> >> which
> > > > > >> >> > not
> > > > > >> >> > > > > support unsigned types. For example, a user could
> > derive
> > > -6
> > > > > >> value
> > > > > >> >> in
> > > > > >> >> > > Java
> > > > > >> >> > > > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits perspective
> will
> > > be
> > > > > >> >> right). I
> > > > > >> >> > > > think
> > > > > >> >> > > > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such cases,
> > > especially
> > > > it
> > > > > >> >> will be
> > > > > >> >> > > bad
> > > > > >> >> > > > > for unsigned long when we require returns BigInteger
> > > type.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix for new
> > types
> > > > > like
> > > > > >> a
> > > > > >> >> > > '250u' -
> > > > > >> >> > > > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive comparison
> > > logic
> > > > > for
> > > > > >> >> > indexes
> > > > > >> >> > > > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for expressions.
> I
> > > > think
> > > > > it
> > > > > >> >> not
> > > > > >> >> > > > > possible for the current H2 engine and probably
> > possible
> > > > for
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> >> new
> > > > > >> >> > > > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from anybody who
> > > > involved
> > > > > in
> > > > > >> >> this
> > > > > >> >> > > part
> > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > >> >> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >> >> > > > > >:
> > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0: once
> we
> > > the
> > > > > >> actual
> > > > > >> >> > type
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > information, we can make proper runtime adjustments
> > and
> > > > > >> >> conversions
> > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will be just a
> > bit
> > > > more
> > > > > >> >> > > expensive.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > >> >> [hidden email]
> > > > > >> >> > >:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons and so
> > on
> > > > are
> > > > > >> >> broken
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned this
> > > > > somewhere
> > > > > >> >> > above.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document that SQL is
> > not
> > > > > >> >> supported
> > > > > >> >> > on
> > > > > >> >> > > > > those
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > types,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > end of story.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey Goncharuk
> <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable request. I
> > > > thought
> > > > > >> about
> > > > > >> >> > this
> > > > > >> >> > > > > when
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > I
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add
> these
> > > > types
> > > > > >> right
> > > > > >> >> > > away.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the
> > > beginning
> > > > > with
> > > > > >> >> .NET
> > > > > >> >> > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > C++
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > :)
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually works as
> > > > expected,
> > > > > it
> > > > > >> >> needs
> > > > > >> >> > > > some
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns are
> false):
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - It's true that equality check works
> > properly,
> > > > but
> > > > > >> for
> > > > > >> >> SQL
> > > > > >> >> > > > range
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    queries it will break unless some special
> care
> > > is
> > > > > >> taken
> > > > > >> >> on
> > > > > >> >> > > Java
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > side:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will be
> > > > converted
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> >> -1,
> > > > > >> >> > > > which
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we don't have
> > > unsigned
> > > > > >> types
> > > > > >> >> > now,
> > > > > >> >> > > I
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > doubt
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    works.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - There is an obvious cross-platform data
> loss
> > > > when
> > > > > >> >> > > "intuitive"
> > > > > >> >> > > > > type
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8 corresponds to
> > > byte
> > > > > >> type in
> > > > > >> >> > > .NET,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > but
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have to use
> > short
> > > > > type
> > > > > >> in
> > > > > >> >> > Java,
> > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    will also need to take care of the range
> check
> > > > > during
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > serialization).
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > I
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    think we can even allow to try to
> deserialize
> > a
> > > > > value
> > > > > >> >> into
> > > > > >> >> > > > > arbitrary
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > type,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    but throw an exception if the range is out
> of
> > > > > bounds.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once all
> the
> > > > > details
> > > > > >> >> are
> > > > > >> >> > > > settled
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > here?
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey Mashenkov
> <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't be
> > > treated
> > > > > >> >> correctly
> > > > > >> >> > > for
> > > > > >> >> > > > > now
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I think we could make "true" support for
> > unsigned
> > > > > >> types,
> > > > > >> >> but
> > > > > >> >> > > they
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map uint64
> to
> > > > Java
> > > > > >> long
> > > > > >> >> > > > > primitive,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > but
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > BigInteger only.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64 to Java
> > > long,
> > > > > but
> > > > > >> >> treat
> > > > > >> >> > > > > negative
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > values in a different way to preserve correct
> > > > > ordering.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > These limitations will affect only mixed
> > > > environments
> > > > > >> when
> > > > > >> >> > .Net
> > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Java
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > used to access the data.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Will this solution address your issues?
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel
> Tupitsyn
> > <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the
> > > > beginning
> > > > > >> with
> > > > > >> >> > .NET
> > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > C++
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > :)
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as cache
> keys
> > > and
> > > > > >> >> values,
> > > > > >> >> > as
> > > > > >> >> > > > > fields
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > properties,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y
> > clauses)
> > > -
> > > > it
> > > > > >> >> works
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > transparently
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the users.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats those
> > values
> > > > as
> > > > > >> >> > > > corresponding
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > signed
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in some
> cases
> > > > only
> > > > > >> >> because
> > > > > >> >> > > > there
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > are
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > no
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very simple
> > change
> > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > protocol
> > > > > >> >> > > > -
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > add
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > type
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as signed
> > > > > >> >> counterparts.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey
> > > Mashenkov
> > > > <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise
> > > > > >> representation
> > > > > >> >> is
> > > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > same)
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a
> uByte
> > > > field
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> >> map
> > > > > >> >> > it
> > > > > >> >> > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > 'uint8'
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > column.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to "250" and
> > put
> > > > the
> > > > > >> >> object
> > > > > >> >> > > > into a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > table,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a single
> byte
> > > > > 'int8'
> > > > > >> >> > column.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it to
> > > > directly
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> >> Java
> > > > > >> >> > > > > object
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > field
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8 type
> to
> > > > Java
> > > > > >> >> 'short'
> > > > > >> >> > > type
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > because the one expected to see "250" as
> a
> > > > value
> > > > > >> which
> > > > > >> >> > > > doesn't
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > fit
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > signed type.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a BigInteger
> > > field
> > > > in
> > > > > >> >> Java.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat column value
> > as
> > > > Java
> > > > > >> >> 'byte'
> > > > > >> >> > as
> > > > > >> >> > > > is,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > because
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a negative
> > value,
> > > so
> > > > > it
> > > > > >> >> should
> > > > > >> >> > > be
> > > > > >> >> > > > > cast
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > short
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger for
> > > uint64)
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will require a
> > > > different
> > > > > >> >> > > comparator.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel
> > > Tupitsyn
> > > > <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a good
> > > idea.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the simple
> > > > > approach
> > > > > >> I
> > > > > >> >> > > > described?
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrey
> > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > >> <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing range
> for
> > > > > unsigned
> > > > > >> >> types
> > > > > >> >> > > > then
> > > > > >> >> > > > > we
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > could
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > add a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on
> schema
> > > > level
> > > > > >> >> (like
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > nullability
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > flag)
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types in
> > > storage.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate storage
> > > > > >> type-system
> > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > >> >> > > > binary
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > protocol
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of type
> will
> > > > match
> > > > > 1
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> >> 1
> > > > > >> >> > > with
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > storage
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (native)
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either have a
> > > > separate
> > > > > >> type
> > > > > >> >> id
> > > > > >> >> > or
> > > > > >> >> > > > > treat
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > serialized
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed or
> > > > unsigned
> > > > > >> >> flag).
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever foresee
> the
> > > > > >> >> consequences
> > > > > >> >> > of
> > > > > >> >> > > > > using
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned types
> > > > > perfectly
> > > > > >> >> works
> > > > > >> >> > > > with
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > some
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > database,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite successor
> > > > > confession
> > > > > >> >> with
> > > > > >> >> > our
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > "native"
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he can use
> the
> > > > power
> > > > > >> of
> > > > > >> >> > Ignite
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > Compute
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either fail to
> > use
> > > > his
> > > > > >> >> > unsigned
> > > > > >> >> > > > data
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > on
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Java
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > due
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due to
> natural
> > > Java
> > > > > >> type
> > > > > >> >> > system
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > limitations
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively supported
> types
> > > > with
> > > > > >> >> possible
> > > > > >> >> > > > value
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > ranges
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is what
> trade-off
> > > we
> > > > > >> found
> > > > > >> >> > > > > acceptable:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > narrowing
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use types of
> > wider
> > > > > >> range on
> > > > > >> >> > > > systems
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > like
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Java.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor
> > > > Sapego <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so hard
> > to
> > > > > >> implement
> > > > > >> >> > > > > comparison
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > of
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not
> seem
> > > to
> > > > > be a
> > > > > >> >> big
> > > > > >> >> > > issue
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > from
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > my
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned types
> > from
> > > > > Java
> > > > > >> - I
> > > > > >> >> > > think,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > if
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > user
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to
> interact
> > > with
> > > > > it
> > > > > >> >> from
> > > > > >> >> > > Java
> > > > > >> >> > > > he
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > knows
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > he
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from
> > platforms
> > > > > where
> > > > > >> >> they
> > > > > >> >> > > have
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > native
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > widely
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where
> > users
> > > > > >> currently
> > > > > >> >> > have
> > > > > >> >> > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > make a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > manual
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > casting
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using unsigned
> > types
> > > > when
> > > > > >> they
> > > > > >> >> > use
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > Ignite.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM
> Pavel
> > > > > >> Tupitsyn <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for those
> > > types
> > > > > >> >> > (basically,
> > > > > >> >> > > > just
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > add
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java
> > > (bitwise
> > > > > >> >> > > representation
> > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > same)
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned
> > > > integers,
> > > > > >> so
> > > > > >> >> we
> > > > > >> >> > can
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > simply
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > say
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative
> comparison
> > is
> > > > not
> > > > > >> >> > supported
> > > > > >> >> > > > in
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > SQL
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (equality
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM
> > > Andrey
> > > > > >> >> Mashenkov
> > > > > >> >> > <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have i8 or
> > > int8
> > > > > >> >> instead of
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > Integer.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't address
> > the
> > > > > issue.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types should
> be
> > > > > portable
> > > > > >> >> > across
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > different
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > systems
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type support.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is that
> > > unsigned
> > > > > >> types
> > > > > >> >> > cover
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > different
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > ranges.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to
> > introduce a
> > > > > >> uLong.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big deal
> > to
> > > > add
> > > > > >> uLong
> > > > > >> >> > type
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > support
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > at
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > storage
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and
> then
> > > use
> > > > it
> > > > > >> in
> > > > > >> >> e.g.
> > > > > >> >> > > > .Net
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > only.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support it in
> > e.g.
> > > > > Java?
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range
> is
> > > > about
> > > > > >> >> (2^-63
> > > > > >> >> > ..
> > > > > >> >> > > > > 2^63)
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > range
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to
> > restrict
> > > > > range
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> >> (0
> > > > > >> >> > ..
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > 2^63).
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > This
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but
> > > doesn't
> > > > > look
> > > > > >> >> like
> > > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > 'real'
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse when
> the
> > > > user
> > > > > >> will
> > > > > >> >> use
> > > > > >> >> > > > > uByte,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > as
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > limitation
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map
> > > unsigned
> > > > > >> types
> > > > > >> >> to a
> > > > > >> >> > > > type
> > > > > >> >> > > > > of
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > wider
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative
> values.
> > > > E.g.
> > > > > >> >> uLong to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > BigInteger.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive Java
> > > type
> > > > > for
> > > > > >> >> Long
> > > > > >> >> > > here.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > However,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > still
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8
> > bytes,
> > > > but
> > > > > >> >> have a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > special
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > comparator
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid
> unwanted
> > > > > >> >> > deserialization.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM
> > > Pavel
> > > > > >> >> Tupitsyn
> > > > > >> >> > <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of
> "long,
> > > > short,
> > > > > >> >> byte"
> > > > > >> >> > in
> > > > > >> >> > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > protocol
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style, which
> is
> > > > > concise
> > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > unambiguous:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58
> PM
> > > > Igor
> > > > > >> >> Sapego <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support that.
> Also,
> > > if
> > > > we
> > > > > >> are
> > > > > >> >> > > aiming
> > > > > >> >> > > > > for
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger
> > platform-independance,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may want
> to
> > > > > support
> > > > > >> >> > > > > bit-notation
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (int32,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a different
> > > type
> > > > on
> > > > > >> >> > different
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > platforms
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often when
> > using
> > > > ODBC
> > > > > >> for
> > > > > >> >> > > > example).
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
> 1:34
> > PM
> > > > > Pavel
> > > > > >> >> > > Tupitsyn
> > > > > >> >> > > > <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should support
> > > > > unsigned
> > > > > >> >> data
> > > > > >> >> > > > types:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt,
> uLong
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have them,
> > but
> > > > many
> > > > > >> >> other
> > > > > >> >> > > > > languages
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > do,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing
> number
> > > of
> > > > > thin
> > > > > >> >> > clients
> > > > > >> >> > > > > this
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in current
> > > > > Ignite.NET
> > > > > >> >> > > > > implementation
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > we
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > store
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain
> > when
> > > it
> > > > > >> comes
> > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > metadata,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > binary
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to
> deserialize
> > > int
> > > > as
> > > > > >> uint
> > > > > >> >> > when
> > > > > >> >> > > > you
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > have
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > class,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
> > 12:28
> > > > PM
> > > > > >> >> Andrey
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > Mashenkov <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both
> > > serializers
> > > > > use
> > > > > >> >> > > reflection
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > API.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will allow
> > > users
> > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > configure
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > static
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > along
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still
> > need
> > > to
> > > > > >> >> validate
> > > > > >> >> > > user
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > classes
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > client
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in
> the
> > > grid
> > > > > >> and
> > > > > >> >> > > > reflection
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > API
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few
> > articles
> > > > on
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> >> > > internet
> > > > > >> >> > > > > on
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > how
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task for
> > > > > supporting
> > > > > >> >> > > GraalVM,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > maybe
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM
> > will
> > > > > >> suggest a
> > > > > >> >> > > > solution
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > or
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proper
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is
> > found,
> > > we
> > > > > >> could
> > > > > >> >> > allow
> > > > > >> >> > > > > users
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > write
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > own
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I don't
> > > think
> > > > > it
> > > > > >> is
> > > > > >> >> a
> > > > > >> >> > > good
> > > > > >> >> > > > > idea
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > expose
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the public.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
> > > 2:55
> > > > AM
> > > > > >> >> Denis
> > > > > >> >> > > > Magda <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for
> the
> > > > > update,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the
> > > serializers
> > > > > >> take
> > > > > >> >> into
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > consideration
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> native-image-generation
> > > > > >> feature of
> > > > > >> >> > > > GraalVM?
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current
> binary
> > > > > >> >> marshaller,
> > > > > >> >> > we
> > > > > >> >> > > > > can't
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > even
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > generate
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using
> our
> > > thin
> > > > > >> client
> > > > > >> >> > > APIs.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020
> at
> > > > 4:39
> > > > > AM
> > > > > >> >> > Andrey
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to
> continue
> > > > > >> discussion
> > > > > >> >> of
> > > > > >> >> > > > IEP-54
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who
> is
> > > > > >> interested
> > > > > >> >> > had a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > chance
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > get
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not
> > hesitate
> > > > to
> > > > > >> ask
> > > > > >> >> > > > questions
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > share
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a
> > > prototype
> > > > > of
> > > > > >> >> > > serializer
> > > > > >> >> > > > > [2]
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > for
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > data
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I
> > compared
> > > 2
> > > > > >> >> approaches
> > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > (de)serialize
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java
> > > > reflection/unsafe
> > > > > >> API
> > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > similar
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second one
> > > > > generates
> > > > > >> >> > > serializer
> > > > > >> >> > > > > for
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library for
> > > > > >> compilation.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows
> > better
> > > > > >> results
> > > > > >> >> in
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > benchmarks.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go
> > with
> > > it
> > > > > as
> > > > > >> >> > default
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > serializer
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation as a
> > > > > fallback
> > > > > >> if
> > > > > >> >> > > someone
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a number
> of
> > > > tasks
> > > > > >> >> under
> > > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > umbrella
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ticket
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to
> > > create
> > > > > more
> > > > > >> >> > tickets
> > > > > >> >> > > > for
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > manager
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation, but
> > > would
> > > > > >> like
> > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > >> >> > > > clarify
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > some
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > details.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought
> > schemaManager
> > > > on
> > > > > >> each
> > > > > >> >> > node
> > > > > >> >> > > > > should
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > held:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local mapping
> of
> > > > > "schema
> > > > > >> >> > > version"
> > > > > >> >> > > > > <-->
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > validated
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide
> > > schema
> > > > > >> changes
> > > > > >> >> > > > history.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client side.
> > > > Before
> > > > > >> any
> > > > > >> >> > > > key-value
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > API
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > operation
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a given
> > > > > key-value
> > > > > >> >> pair.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no
> > > > > local-mapping
> > > > > >> >> exists
> > > > > >> >> > > > for a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > given
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema
> > > has a
> > > > > >> more
> > > > > >> >> > recent
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > version
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be validated
> > > > against
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> >> > > latest
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > version
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updated/actualized.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object
> doesn't
> > > fit
> > > > to
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> >> > > latest
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > schema
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > depends
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail
> the
> > > > > >> operation
> > > > > >> >> > > > ('strict'
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > mode)
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a new
> > > schema
> > > > > >> version
> > > > > >> >> > > should
> > > > > >> >> > > > > be
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > propagated
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server side
> we
> > > > > usually
> > > > > >> >> have
> > > > > >> >> > no
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > classes
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change
> > > history
> > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > available
> > > > > >> >> > > > > and a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > tuple
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to
> > > upgrade
> > > > > any
> > > > > >> >> > > received
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > tuple
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > last
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow
> > > nodes
> > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> send
> > > > > >> >> > > > > key-value
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > pairs
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't
> receive a
> > > > > schema
> > > > > >> >> update
> > > > > >> >> > > > yet)
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > without
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > reverting
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node with
> > > newer
> > > > > >> >> classes.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did
> > you
> > > > > mean
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> >> > > same?
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >>
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17,
> 2020
> > at
> > > > > 9:21
> > > > > >> AM
> > > > > >> >> > Ivan
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not
> > ignore
> > > > > >> history.
> > > > > >> >> We
> > > > > >> >> > > had
> > > > > >> >> > > > a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > thread
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can
> > resume
> > > > it.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08
> > > > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > >> >> Denis
> > > > > >> >> > > > Magda
> > > > > >> >> > > > > <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes
> sense,
> > > > > thanks
> > > > > >> for
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > explaining.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we
> > need
> > > to
> > > > > >> have a
> > > > > >> >> > > > separate
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms
> > > > > >> substitution.
> > > > > >> >> > I'll
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > appreciate
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing
> pointers
> > to
> > > > any
> > > > > >> >> > relevant
> > > > > >> >> > > > IEPs
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > reasoning
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8,
> > 2020
> > > > at
> > > > > >> 6:01
> > > > > >> >> PM
> > > > > >> >> > > > > Valentin
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> [hidden email]>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the
> > > wording
> > > > in
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> >> IEP
> > > > > >> >> > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > little
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > bit
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you
> should
> > > not
> > > > > >> create
> > > > > >> >> > > nested
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > POJOs,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO
> that
> > > is
> > > > > >> mapped
> > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > particular
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not
> > > > > supported.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this
> > > > correct?
> > > > > >> >> Please
> > > > > >> >> > > let
> > > > > >> >> > > > me
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > know
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the
> > "cache"
> > > > > >> term, I
> > > > > >> >> > agree
> > > > > >> >> > > > > that
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > it
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can
> > > replace
> > > > it
> > > > > >> >> with.
> > > > > >> >> > > > "Table"
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > tightly
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is
> optional
> > in
> > > > our
> > > > > >> >> case.
> > > > > >> >> > Do
> > > > > >> >> > > > you
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > want
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > create a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8,
> > > 2020
> > > > at
> > > > > >> >> 4:37 PM
> > > > > >> >> > > > Denis
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked
> > the
> > > > IEP
> > > > > >> again
> > > > > >> >> > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > have a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > few
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > questions.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary
> > nested
> > > > > >> objects
> > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > collections
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested
> POJOs
> > > > should
> > > > > >> >> either
> > > > > >> >> > be
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > inlined
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you
> > > provide a
> > > > > DDL
> > > > > >> >> code
> > > > > >> >> > > > > snippet
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > showing
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to
> > work?
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep
> > > using
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> terms
> > > > > >> >> > > > > "cache"
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right
> time
> > to
> > > > > >> discuss
> > > > > >> >> an
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > alternate
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > name
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally,
> the
> > > > > "table"
> > > > > >> >> > should
> > > > > >> >> > > > stay
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is
> one
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > primary
> > > > > >> >> > > > APIs
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > in
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> out-of-the-box.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep
> 7,
> > > 2020
> > > > > at
> > > > > >> >> 12:26
> > > > > >> >> > PM
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > [hidden email]>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your
> > > > point. I
> > > > > >> >> agree
> > > > > >> >> > > that
> > > > > >> >> > > > > with
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > automatic
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last
> > > > > >> territory.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually,
> if
> > we
> > > > > >> support
> > > > > >> >> > > > automatic
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > evolution,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a
> > > cache
> > > > > >> without
> > > > > >> >> > > schema
> > > > > >> >> > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > inferring
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other
> words,
> > we
> > > > can
> > > > > >> have
> > > > > >> >> > both
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey,
> what
> > do
> > > > you
> > > > > >> >> think?
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep
> > 7,
> > > > 2020
> > > > > >> at
> > > > > >> >> 5:59
> > > > > >> >> > > AM
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > Alexey
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >> >> [hidden email]
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank
> you,
> > I
> > > > got
> > > > > >> your
> > > > > >> >> > > concern
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > now.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > As
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > terminology,
> > > I
> > > > am
> > > > > >> >> > > absolutely
> > > > > >> >> > > > > fine
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the
> > approach
> > > > > best.
> > > > > >> >> > Dynamic
> > > > > >> >> > > or
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > evolving
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > corresponding
> > > > > >> changes
> > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > IEP
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > once
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > settle
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7
> сент.
> > > > 2020
> > > > > >> г. в
> > > > > >> >> > > 11:33,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > Ivan
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank
> you
> > > for
> > > > > >> your
> > > > > >> >> > > answer!
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My
> > > > > understanding
> > > > > >> is
> > > > > >> >> a
> > > > > >> >> > > > little
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > bit
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > different.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > definitely
> > > > > >> should be
> > > > > >> >> > > > > possible.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > But
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > see
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > main
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema
> is
> > > > > >> updated".
> > > > > >> >> I
> > > > > >> >> > > > treat a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > common
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> data
> > > > > >> >> manipulation
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > operations
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > clearly
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > interesting
> > > > > >> >> > capabilities,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > e.g.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > preventing
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> mistaken
> > > data
> > > > > >> >> > operations,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > restricting
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > Schema-first
> > > > > >> means
> > > > > >> >> > that
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > schema
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > exists
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > compliant
> > > > > with
> > > > > >> >> it -
> > > > > >> >> > > > that's
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A
> > > schema-last
> > > > > >> >> approach
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > mentioned
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > in
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists,
> > but
> > > > it
> > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > inferred
> > > > > >> >> > > > > from
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > data.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> proposing
> > > > > >> approach?
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I
> > would
> > > > > like
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> >> > say,
> > > > > >> >> > > > that
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > my
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > main
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > terminology.
> > > > > And
> > > > > >> I
> > > > > >> >> > > suppose
> > > > > >> >> > > > if
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > it
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > confuses
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> confused
> > as
> > > > > >> well. My
> > > > > >> >> > > > feeling
> > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > closer
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> evolving
> > > > > schema".
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >>
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > 2020-09-07
> > > > 0:47
> > > > > >> >> > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > >:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi
> > Ivan,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I
> don't
> > > see
> > > > > an
> > > > > >> >> issue
> > > > > >> >> > > with
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > that.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> advance
> > > and
> > > > > all
> > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > >> >> > > > stored
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > data
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > compliant
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is
> > > > proposed.
> > > > > >> There
> > > > > >> >> > are
> > > > > >> >> > > no
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > restrictions
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On
> Sat,
> > > Sep
> > > > > 5,
> > > > > >> >> 2020
> > > > > >> >> > at
> > > > > >> >> > > > 9:52
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > PM
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ivan
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > Alexey,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I
> am a
> > > > > little
> > > > > >> bit
> > > > > >> >> > > > confused
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > with
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a
> > > > survey
> > > > > >> [1]
> > > > > >> >> (see
> > > > > >> >> > > > part
> > > > > >> >> > > > > X
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Semi
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Structured
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> really
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a
> > > "dynamic
> > > > > >> >> schema"
> > > > > >> >> > > > > approach
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > as a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > kind
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1]
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >>
> > > >
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > 2020-09-02
> > > > > >> 1:53
> > > > > >> >> > > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > However,
> > > > > >> could
> > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > >> >> > > > > please
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > ORM?
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> Is
> > > > there
> > > > > a
> > > > > >> use
> > > > > >> >> > case
> > > > > >> >> > > > for
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> (I
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > seen
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> one
> > > so
> > > > > >> far)?
> > > > > >> >> If
> > > > > >> >> > so,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > what
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > support
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > this?
> > > > In
> > > > > my
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> have.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> Am
> > I
> > > > > >> missing
> > > > > >> >> > > > something?
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> Good
> > > > > point,
> > > > > >> >> yes,
> > > > > >> >> > if
> > > > > >> >> > > > all
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > ORM
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > internally,
> > > > > >> >> then
> > > > > >> >> > > they
> > > > > >> >> > > > > can
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > easily
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > translate
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >> INSERT/UPDATE
> > > > > >> >> > > > statement
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > that
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > lists
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> our
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > Spring
> > > > > Data
> > > > > >> >> > > > integration
> > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > based
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> APIs
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > needs
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to
> > be
> > > > > >> improved
> > > > > >> >> > once
> > > > > >> >> > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > solve
> > > a
> > > > > ton
> > > > > >> of
> > > > > >> >> > > > usability
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > issues.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I
> > > would
> > > > > >> revise
> > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > phase.
> > > > > Can't
> > > > > >> >> say
> > > > > >> >> > if
> > > > > >> >> > > > it's
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > used
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > lot
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > getting
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> traction
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > sure.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > @Michael
> > > > > >> >> Pollind,
> > > > > >> >> > > I'll
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > loop
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > long
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > Ignite
> > > > > >> support
> > > > > >> >> for
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > Micornaut
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> >>
> > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> came
> > > > > across
> > > > > >> >> some
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > challenges.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Just
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > watch
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > That's
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > coming
> > > > in
> > > > > >> >> Ignite
> > > > > >> >> > > 3.0.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > -
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > Denis
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On
> > > Mon,
> > > > > Aug
> > > > > >> 31,
> > > > > >> >> > 2020
> > > > > >> >> > > > at
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > 5:11
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> Hi
> > > > Denis,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > Generally
> > > > > >> >> > > speaking, I
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > believe
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > addresses
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> >> > issue
> > > > > >> >> > > > if
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > duplicate
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > because
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > schema
> > > > > >> will be
> > > > > >> >> > > > created
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > for
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > cache,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > Basically,
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> >> > > schema
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > define
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > whether
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > not,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> and
> > > > which
> > > > > >> >> fields
> > > > > >> >> > > are
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > included
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> would
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > have
> > > > must
> > > > > >> be
> > > > > >> >> > > > compliant
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > with
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > this,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > with
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > data
> > > as
> > > > > >> with a
> > > > > >> >> > set
> > > > > >> >> > > of
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > records,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > However,
> > > > > >> could
> > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > >> >> > > > > please
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > ORM?
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> Is
> > > > there
> > > > > a
> > > > > >> use
> > > > > >> >> > case
> > > > > >> >> > > > for
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> (I
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > seen
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> one
> > > so
> > > > > >> far)?
> > > > > >> >> If
> > > > > >> >> > so,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > what
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > support
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > this?
> > > > In
> > > > > my
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> have.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> Am
> > I
> > > > > >> missing
> > > > > >> >> > > > something?
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > -Val
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> On
> > > Mon,
> > > > > Aug
> > > > > >> >> 31,
> > > > > >> >> > > 2020
> > > > > >> >> > > > at
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > 2:08
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > Val,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > I
> > > > would
> > > > > >> >> propose
> > > > > >> >> > > > > adding
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > another
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > point
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > list
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > related
> > > > > >> to
> > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > >> >> > > ORM
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > frameworks
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > Micronaut
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > many
> > > > > >> others.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> Presently,
> > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > storage
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > engine
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requires
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > from
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > value
> > > > > >> ones
> > > > > >> >> that
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > complicate
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> frameworks
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> (especially
> > > > > >> >> if
> > > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > >> >> > > > key
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > object
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > comprises
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > More
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> be
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > found
> > > > > >> here:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > It
> > > > will
> > > > > >> be
> > > > > >> >> nice
> > > > > >> >> > > if
> > > > > >> >> > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > new
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > a
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > single
> > > > > >> >> entity
> > > > > >> >> > > > object
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > when
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > comes
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > split
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > entity
> > > > > >> into
> > > > > >> >> a
> > > > > >> >> > key
> > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > value.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Just
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > 3.0
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > has
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > all
> > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > essential
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > public
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > APIs
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > single-entity
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > based
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > approach.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > What
> > > > do
> > > > > >> you
> > > > > >> >> > > think?
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > -
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > Denis
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > On
> > > > Fri,
> > > > > >> Aug
> > > > > >> >> 28,
> > > > > >> >> > > > 2020
> > > > > >> >> > > > > at
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > 3:50
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > PM
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >
> > > > > >> Igniters,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >
> > > One
> > > > > of
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> >> > big
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > changes
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proposed
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >
> > > > > >> >> "schema-first
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > approach".
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > To
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >
> > > > > started
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >
> > > the
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > IEP
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >
> > > for
> > > > > >> this
> > > > > >> >> > > change:
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >
> > > > > Please
> > > > > >> >> take a
> > > > > >> >> > > > look
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > let
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >
> > > > > >> thoughts,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >
> > > > > >> >> suggestions,
> > > > > >> >> > or
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > objections.
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >
> > > > -Val
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best
> > > > > regards,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan
> > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best
> > > regards,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan
> > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > > --
> > > > > >> >> > > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > > > --
> > > > > >> >> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > >> >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>

[Andrew Mashenkov]

Igniters,
I've prepared PR [1] with Public Table API for final review.

Main points
There are 4 projection interfaces over Table for different use-cases (Plain
record vs Key-Value and POJO vs Binary object) declaring synchronous and
asynchronous methods.
Async method returns IgniteFuture as there is no consensus on IgniteFuture
vs JDK CompletableFuture yet.
API implementation is incomplete, it just an example of how it could be
done and will be implemented in future tasks.
Tuple/TupleAssembler renamed to Row/RowAssembler. Now Tuple is just a
dictionary representing a subset of columns, while Row is a schema-aware
object containing key and value columns respectively to the data layout.

On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:26 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I see, thanks.
>
> Let's discuss the return type - Future is not the one to use.
> We should return CompletionStage, CompletableFuture, or introduce our own
> interface.
> We agreed on the last one (custom interface) for thin clients:
>
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/IEP-51-Java-Thin-Client-Async-API-td48900.html
>
> I believe that for Ignite 3.0 we should have the following:
> public interface IgniteFuture<T> extends Future<T>, CompletionStage<T> {
>     // No-op.
> }
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:16 AM Andrey Mashenkov <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Pavel,
> > There are 2 PR's for the ticket[1] with two different APIs  suggested.
> > Please, take a look at PR [2].
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14035
> > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/69
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:11 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Andrey, I can't find any async methods,
> > > can you please check if the changes are pushed?
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 10:06 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Pavel, good point.
> > > > Thanks. I've added async methods.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 2:29 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Andrey,
> > > > >
> > > > > What about corresponding async APIs, do we add them now or later?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 8:11 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Igniters.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've created a PR for Table access API [1].
> > > > > > This is an initial version. So, any suggestions\objections are
> > > > welcomed.
> > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to write your comments and\or examples to
> > the
> > > > PR.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ignite-api module contains API classes, e.g. TableView classes as
> > > > > > projections for a table for different purposes.
> > > > > > Ignite-table contains dummy implementation and Example class
> > > explained
> > > > > how
> > > > > > it is supposed to be used.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, I'm still waiting for any feedback for Schema configuration
> > > > public
> > > > > > API PR [2].
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/33
> > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:05 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've updated a PR regarding your feedback [1].
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:58 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Folks,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I updated the IEP to contain the missing pieces; actually,
> most
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > >> questions here were covered by the text. Please let me know if
> > > there
> > > > > is
> > > > > > >> something still missing or unclear.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> чт, 31 дек. 2020 г. в 12:48, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >> >:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > Mikhail and Igniters,
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Thanks for your comments. The questions are reasonable,
> > though I
> > > > > think
> > > > > > >> all
> > > > > > >> > concerns are addressed by the IEP as Val mentioned. I will
> > > update
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >> > document according to your questions in the following week
> or
> > > so,
> > > > so
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > >> can
> > > > > > >> > have a constructive discussion further.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > ср, 30 дек. 2020 г. в 11:45, Michael Cherkasov <
> > > > > > >> > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> Hi Val, Andrey,
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> thank you for clarifying.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> I still have a few comments.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> 1. one table == one schema. KV vs SQL:
> > > > > > >> >> Looks like all agreed that KV is just a special case of a
> > > regular
> > > > > > table
> > > > > > >> >> with (blob,blob) schema.
> > > > > > >> >> I worry about the case when the user starts from KV case
> and
> > > > later
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > >> >> try
> > > > > > >> >> to expand it and try to leverage SQL for the existing KV
> > table
> > > it
> > > > > > >> won't be
> > > > > > >> >> able to do so and will require to reload data. which isn't
> > > > > convenient
> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > >> >> sometimes not even possible. Is it possible to extract a
> new
> > > > field
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > >> >> (blob, blob) schema and apply index on it?
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> 2. Could you please also list all ways of schema definition
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > >> IEP? It
> > > > > > >> >> significant change and I bet the main point of this IEP,
> > > everyone
> > > > > > hates
> > > > > > >> >> QueryEntities, they are difficult to manage and in general,
> > > it's
> > > > > very
> > > > > > >> >> confusing to have a data model(schemas) and node/cluster
> > > > > > configuration
> > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > >> >> one place.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> So there will be SchemaBuilder and SQL to define schemas,
> but
> > > > > Andrey
> > > > > > >> also
> > > > > > >> >> mentioned annotations.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> I personally against configuration via annotations, while
> > it's
> > > > > > >> convenient
> > > > > > >> >> for development, it difficult to manage because different
> > > classes
> > > > > can
> > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > >> >> deployed on different clients/servers nodes and it can lead
> > to
> > > > > > >> >> unpredictable results.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> 3. IEP doesn't mention field type changes, only drop/add
> > > fields.
> > > > > > Field
> > > > > > >> >> type
> > > > > > >> >> changes are extremely painful right now(if even possible),
> so
> > > it
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > >> >> nice if some scenarios would be supported(like int8->int16,
> > or
> > > > > > >> >> int8->String).
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> 4. got it, I thought IEP will have more details about the
> > > > > > >> implementation.
> > > > > > >> >> I've seen Andrey even sent benchmark results for a new
> > > > > serialization,
> > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > >> >> ping him about this.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> 5. Thanks for the clarification. I had a wrong
> understanding
> > of
> > > > > > strick
> > > > > > >> >> mode.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> вт, 29 дек. 2020 г. в 19:32, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > > >> >> [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> > Hi Mike,
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > Thanks for providing your feedback. Please see my
> comments
> > > > below.
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > I would also encourage you to go through the IEP-54 [1] -
> > it
> > > > has
> > > > > a
> > > > > > >> lot
> > > > > > >> >> of
> > > > > > >> >> > detail on the topic.
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > [1]
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > -Val
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:22 PM Michael Cherkasov <
> > > > > > >> >> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > Hi all,
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > I reviewed the mail thread and proposal page and I
> still
> > > > don't
> > > > > > >> fully
> > > > > > >> >> > > understand what is going to be changed, I would really
> > > > > appreciate
> > > > > > >> it
> > > > > > >> >> if
> > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > > >> >> > > will answer a few questions:
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > 1. Are you going to leave only one schema per cache? if
> > so,
> > > > > will
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > >> >> there
> > > > > > >> >> > > an option to have a table with arbitrary objects(pure
> KV
> > > > case)?
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > My opinion is that KV case should be natively supported.
> I
> > > > think
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > >> >> still
> > > > > > >> >> > needs to be thought over, my current view on this is that
> > we
> > > > > should
> > > > > > >> have
> > > > > > >> >> > separate APIs for KV and more generic storages. KV
> storage
> > > can
> > > > be
> > > > > > >> >> > implemented as a "table" with two BLOB fields where we
> will
> > > > store
> > > > > > >> >> > serialized key-value pairs. That would imply
> > deserialization
> > > on
> > > > > > read,
> > > > > > >> >> but I
> > > > > > >> >> > believe this is OK for KV use cases. I'm happy to hear
> > other
> > > > > ideas
> > > > > > >> >> though
> > > > > > >> >> > :)
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0 have to define
> > > schema?
> > > > > > >> >> > SchemaBuilder
> > > > > > >> >> > > and SQL only? Is there an option to put the schema
> > > definition
> > > > > to
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> >> > > configuration?(I really don't like this, I would prefer
> > to
> > > > have
> > > > > > >> >> > > separate scripts to create schemas)
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > There will be no such thing as a static configuration in
> > the
> > > > > first
> > > > > > >> >> place.
> > > > > > >> >> > Tables and schemas are created in runtime. Even if there
> > is a
> > > > > file
> > > > > > >> >> provided
> > > > > > >> >> > on node startup, this file is only applied in the scope
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > >> 'start'
> > > > > > >> >> > operation. All configurations will be stored in a meta
> > > storage
> > > > > > >> >> available to
> > > > > > >> >> > all nodes, as opposed to individual files.
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > 3. Is there a way to change field type? if yes, can it
> be
> > > > done
> > > > > in
> > > > > > >> >> > runtime?
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > Absolutely! IEP-54 has a whole section about schema
> > > evolution.
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going to be re-worked
> > > too,
> > > > is
> > > > > > >> there
> > > > > > >> >> any
> > > > > > >> >> > > IEP for this?
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > BinaryMarshaller as a tool for arbitrary object
> > serialization
> > > > > will
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > >> >> gone,
> > > > > > >> >> > but we will reuse a lot of its concept to implement an
> > > internal
> > > > > > tuple
> > > > > > >> >> > serialization mechanism. IEP-54 has the description of
> the
> > > > > proposed
> > > > > > >> data
> > > > > > >> >> > format.
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > 5. I don't like automatic schema evaluation when a new
> > > field
> > > > is
> > > > > > >> added
> > > > > > >> >> > > automatically on record put, so is there a way to
> > prohibit
> > > > this
> > > > > > >> >> behavior?
> > > > > > >> >> > >  I think all schema changes should be done only
> > explicitly
> > > > > except
> > > > > > >> >> initial
> > > > > > >> >> > > schema creation.
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > The way I see it is that we should have two modes:
> > > schema-first
> > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > schema-last. Schema-first means exactly what you've
> > > described -
> > > > > > >> schemas
> > > > > > >> >> are
> > > > > > >> >> > defined and updated explicitly by the user. In the
> > > schema-last
> > > > > > mode,
> > > > > > >> >> > the user does not deal with schemas, as they are inferred
> > > from
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >> data
> > > > > > >> >> > inserted into tables. We should definitely not mix these
> > > modes
> > > > -
> > > > > it
> > > > > > >> has
> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > >> >> > be one or another. And it probably makes sense to discuss
> > > which
> > > > > > mode
> > > > > > >> >> should
> > > > > > >> >> > be the default one.
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > Thanks,
> > > > > > >> >> > > Mike.
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > > > >> >> > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >> >> > > >:
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > Hi, Igniters.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > We all know that the current QueryEntity API is not
> > > > > convenient
> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > >> >> > needs
> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > be reworked.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema
> configuration
> > > > public
> > > > > > API
> > > > > > >> >> for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > Ignite 3.0.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > New schema configuration uses Builder pattern, which
> > > looks
> > > > > more
> > > > > > >> >> > > comfortable
> > > > > > >> >> > > > to use.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package with the
> API
> > > > > itself,
> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > >> >> a
> > > > > > >> >> > > draft
> > > > > > >> >> > > > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > and a test that demonstrates how the API could be
> used.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > Please note:
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with static
> > > factory
> > > > > > >> methods.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > * The implementation is decoupled and can be easily
> > > > extracted
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > separate
> > > > > > >> >> > > > module if we decide to do so.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are missed,
> they
> > > will
> > > > > be
> > > > > > >> added
> > > > > > >> >> > > lately
> > > > > > >> >> > > > in separate tickes.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Index configuration extends marker interface that
> > makes
> > > > > > >> possible
> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > Hopfully, we could add a persistent geo-indices
> support
> > > in
> > > > > > >> future.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Supposedly, current table schema can be changed via
> > > > > > >> builder-like
> > > > > > >> >> > > > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See
> > > > > > >> >> 'TableModificationBuilder'
> > > > > > >> >> > > for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > details.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have 'toBuilder()'
> > > > > converter
> > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > >> >> that
> > > > > > >> >> > > > purpose as it is a Schema Manager responsibility to
> > > create
> > > > > > >> mutator
> > > > > > >> >> > > objects
> > > > > > >> >> > > > from the current schema,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > but implementing the Schema manager is out of scope
> and
> > > > will
> > > > > be
> > > > > > >> >> > designed
> > > > > > >> >> > > > within the next task.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Interfaces implementations are out of scope. I did
> > not
> > > > > intend
> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > >> >> > merge
> > > > > > >> >> > > > them right now, but for test/demostration purposes.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > It is NOT the final version and some may be changed
> > > before
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >> first
> > > > > > >> >> > > > release of course.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed with this
> > > > > approach
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > >> >> some
> > > > > > >> >> > > > issues should be resolved at first.
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > Any thoughts or objections?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > Are interfaces good enough to be merged within the
> > > current
> > > > > > >> ticket?
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <
> > > > > > >> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > >> >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 2. It requires adding new types to the internal
> > > > > > representation,
> > > > > > >> >> > > protocol,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > e.t.c.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 3. internal representation should be the same as we
> > > keep
> > > > > sign
> > > > > > >> >> types.
> > > > > > >> >> > So
> > > > > > >> >> > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > will not requires more memory
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such types for
> > > > > platforms
> > > > > > >> >> which
> > > > > > >> >> > not
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > support unsigned types. For example, a user could
> > > derive
> > > > -6
> > > > > > >> value
> > > > > > >> >> in
> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits perspective
> > will
> > > > be
> > > > > > >> >> right). I
> > > > > > >> >> > > > think
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such cases,
> > > > especially
> > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> will be
> > > > > > >> >> > > bad
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for unsigned long when we require returns
> BigInteger
> > > > type.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix for new
> > > types
> > > > > > like
> > > > > > >> a
> > > > > > >> >> > > '250u' -
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive
> comparison
> > > > logic
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> >> > indexes
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for
> expressions.
> > I
> > > > > think
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> not
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > possible for the current H2 engine and probably
> > > possible
> > > > > for
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> >> new
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from anybody who
> > > > > involved
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > >> >> this
> > > > > > >> >> > > part
> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0: once
> > we
> > > > the
> > > > > > >> actual
> > > > > > >> >> > type
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > information, we can make proper runtime
> adjustments
> > > and
> > > > > > >> >> conversions
> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will be just
> a
> > > bit
> > > > > more
> > > > > > >> >> > > expensive.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > >> >> [hidden email]
> > > > > > >> >> > >:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons and
> so
> > > on
> > > > > are
> > > > > > >> >> broken
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned
> this
> > > > > > somewhere
> > > > > > >> >> > above.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document that SQL
> is
> > > not
> > > > > > >> >> supported
> > > > > > >> >> > on
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > those
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > types,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > end of story.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey
> Goncharuk
> > <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable request.
> I
> > > > > thought
> > > > > > >> about
> > > > > > >> >> > this
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > when
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > I
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add
> > these
> > > > > types
> > > > > > >> right
> > > > > > >> >> > > away.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the
> > > > beginning
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> >> .NET
> > > > > > >> >> > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > C++
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > :)
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually works as
> > > > > expected,
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> needs
> > > > > > >> >> > > > some
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns are
> > false):
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - It's true that equality check works
> > > properly,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > >> >> SQL
> > > > > > >> >> > > > range
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    queries it will break unless some special
> > care
> > > > is
> > > > > > >> taken
> > > > > > >> >> on
> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > side:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will be
> > > > > converted
> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > >> >> -1,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > which
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we don't have
> > > > unsigned
> > > > > > >> types
> > > > > > >> >> > now,
> > > > > > >> >> > > I
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > doubt
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    works.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - There is an obvious cross-platform data
> > loss
> > > > > when
> > > > > > >> >> > > "intuitive"
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > type
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8 corresponds
> to
> > > > byte
> > > > > > >> type in
> > > > > > >> >> > > .NET,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > but
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have to use
> > > short
> > > > > > type
> > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > >> >> > Java,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    will also need to take care of the range
> > check
> > > > > > during
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > serialization).
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    think we can even allow to try to
> > deserialize
> > > a
> > > > > > value
> > > > > > >> >> into
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > arbitrary
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > type,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    but throw an exception if the range is out
> > of
> > > > > > bounds.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once all
> > the
> > > > > > details
> > > > > > >> >> are
> > > > > > >> >> > > > settled
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > here?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey
> Mashenkov
> > <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't be
> > > > treated
> > > > > > >> >> correctly
> > > > > > >> >> > > for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > now
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I think we could make "true" support for
> > > unsigned
> > > > > > >> types,
> > > > > > >> >> but
> > > > > > >> >> > > they
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map
> uint64
> > to
> > > > > Java
> > > > > > >> long
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > primitive,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > BigInteger only.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64 to
> Java
> > > > long,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > >> >> treat
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > negative
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > values in a different way to preserve
> correct
> > > > > > ordering.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > These limitations will affect only mixed
> > > > > environments
> > > > > > >> when
> > > > > > >> >> > .Net
> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > used to access the data.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Will this solution address your issues?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel
> > Tupitsyn
> > > <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the
> > > > > beginning
> > > > > > >> with
> > > > > > >> >> > .NET
> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > C++
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > :)
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as cache
> > keys
> > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> values,
> > > > > > >> >> > as
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > fields
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > properties,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y
> > > clauses)
> > > > -
> > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> works
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > transparently
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the users.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats those
> > > values
> > > > > as
> > > > > > >> >> > > > corresponding
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > signed
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in some
> > cases
> > > > > only
> > > > > > >> >> because
> > > > > > >> >> > > > there
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > are
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > no
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very simple
> > > change
> > > > to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > protocol
> > > > > > >> >> > > > -
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > add
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as
> signed
> > > > > > >> >> counterparts.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey
> > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise
> > > > > > >> representation
> > > > > > >> >> is
> > > > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > same)
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a
> > uByte
> > > > > field
> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > >> >> map
> > > > > > >> >> > it
> > > > > > >> >> > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > 'uint8'
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > column.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to "250"
> and
> > > put
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> object
> > > > > > >> >> > > > into a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > table,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a single
> > byte
> > > > > > 'int8'
> > > > > > >> >> > column.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it to
> > > > > directly
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> >> Java
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > object
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > field
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8
> type
> > to
> > > > > Java
> > > > > > >> >> 'short'
> > > > > > >> >> > > type
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > because the one expected to see "250"
> as
> > a
> > > > > value
> > > > > > >> which
> > > > > > >> >> > > > doesn't
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > fit
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > signed type.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a
> BigInteger
> > > > field
> > > > > in
> > > > > > >> >> Java.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat column
> value
> > > as
> > > > > Java
> > > > > > >> >> 'byte'
> > > > > > >> >> > as
> > > > > > >> >> > > > is,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a negative
> > > value,
> > > > so
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> should
> > > > > > >> >> > > be
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > cast
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > short
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger for
> > > > uint64)
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will require a
> > > > > different
> > > > > > >> >> > > comparator.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel
> > > > Tupitsyn
> > > > > <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a
> good
> > > > idea.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the
> simple
> > > > > > approach
> > > > > > >> I
> > > > > > >> >> > > > described?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM
> Andrey
> > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing range
> > for
> > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > >> >> types
> > > > > > >> >> > > > then
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > we
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > could
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > add a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on
> > schema
> > > > > level
> > > > > > >> >> (like
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > nullability
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > flag)
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types in
> > > > storage.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate
> storage
> > > > > > >> type-system
> > > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > binary
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of type
> > will
> > > > > match
> > > > > > 1
> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > >> >> 1
> > > > > > >> >> > > with
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > storage
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (native)
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either have a
> > > > > separate
> > > > > > >> type
> > > > > > >> >> id
> > > > > > >> >> > or
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > treat
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > serialized
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed or
> > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > >> >> flag).
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever foresee
> > the
> > > > > > >> >> consequences
> > > > > > >> >> > of
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > using
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned
> types
> > > > > > perfectly
> > > > > > >> >> works
> > > > > > >> >> > > > with
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > some
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > database,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite successor
> > > > > > confession
> > > > > > >> >> with
> > > > > > >> >> > our
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > "native"
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he can use
> > the
> > > > > power
> > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > >> >> > Ignite
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Compute
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either fail
> to
> > > use
> > > > > his
> > > > > > >> >> > unsigned
> > > > > > >> >> > > > data
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Java
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > due
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due to
> > natural
> > > > Java
> > > > > > >> type
> > > > > > >> >> > system
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > limitations
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively supported
> > types
> > > > > with
> > > > > > >> >> possible
> > > > > > >> >> > > > value
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > ranges
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is what
> > trade-off
> > > > we
> > > > > > >> found
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > acceptable:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > narrowing
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use types of
> > > wider
> > > > > > >> range on
> > > > > > >> >> > > > systems
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > like
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Java.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM
> Igor
> > > > > Sapego <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so
> hard
> > > to
> > > > > > >> implement
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > comparison
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not
> > seem
> > > > to
> > > > > > be a
> > > > > > >> >> big
> > > > > > >> >> > > issue
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > from
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > my
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned
> types
> > > from
> > > > > > Java
> > > > > > >> - I
> > > > > > >> >> > > think,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > if
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to
> > interact
> > > > with
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> from
> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
> > > > > > >> >> > > > he
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > knows
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > he
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from
> > > platforms
> > > > > > where
> > > > > > >> >> they
> > > > > > >> >> > > have
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > native
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > widely
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where
> > > users
> > > > > > >> currently
> > > > > > >> >> > have
> > > > > > >> >> > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > make a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > manual
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > casting
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using unsigned
> > > types
> > > > > when
> > > > > > >> they
> > > > > > >> >> > use
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Ignite.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM
> > Pavel
> > > > > > >> Tupitsyn <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for
> those
> > > > types
> > > > > > >> >> > (basically,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > just
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > add
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java
> > > > (bitwise
> > > > > > >> >> > > representation
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > same)
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned
> > > > > integers,
> > > > > > >> so
> > > > > > >> >> we
> > > > > > >> >> > can
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > simply
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > say
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative
> > comparison
> > > is
> > > > > not
> > > > > > >> >> > supported
> > > > > > >> >> > > > in
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (equality
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM
> > > > Andrey
> > > > > > >> >> Mashenkov
> > > > > > >> >> > <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have i8
> or
> > > > int8
> > > > > > >> >> instead of
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Integer.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't
> address
> > > the
> > > > > > issue.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types should
> > be
> > > > > > portable
> > > > > > >> >> > across
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > different
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > systems
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type
> support.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is that
> > > > unsigned
> > > > > > >> types
> > > > > > >> >> > cover
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > different
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > ranges.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to
> > > introduce a
> > > > > > >> uLong.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big
> deal
> > > to
> > > > > add
> > > > > > >> uLong
> > > > > > >> >> > type
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > support
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > storage
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and
> > then
> > > > use
> > > > > it
> > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > >> >> e.g.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > .Net
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > only.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support it
> in
> > > e.g.
> > > > > > Java?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range
> > is
> > > > > about
> > > > > > >> >> (2^-63
> > > > > > >> >> > ..
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 2^63)
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > range
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to
> > > restrict
> > > > > > range
> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > >> >> (0
> > > > > > >> >> > ..
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > 2^63).
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > This
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but
> > > > doesn't
> > > > > > look
> > > > > > >> >> like
> > > > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 'real'
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse when
> > the
> > > > > user
> > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > >> >> use
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > uByte,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > as
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > limitation
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map
> > > > unsigned
> > > > > > >> types
> > > > > > >> >> to a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > type
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > of
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > wider
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative
> > values.
> > > > > E.g.
> > > > > > >> >> uLong to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > BigInteger.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive
> Java
> > > > type
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> >> Long
> > > > > > >> >> > > here.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > However,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > still
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8
> > > bytes,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > >> >> have a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > special
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > comparator
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid
> > unwanted
> > > > > > >> >> > deserialization.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04
> PM
> > > > Pavel
> > > > > > >> >> Tupitsyn
> > > > > > >> >> > <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of
> > "long,
> > > > > short,
> > > > > > >> >> byte"
> > > > > > >> >> > in
> > > > > > >> >> > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style,
> which
> > is
> > > > > > concise
> > > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > unambiguous:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
> 1:58
> > PM
> > > > > Igor
> > > > > > >> >> Sapego <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support that.
> > Also,
> > > > if
> > > > > we
> > > > > > >> are
> > > > > > >> >> > > aiming
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger
> > > platform-independance,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may
> want
> > to
> > > > > > support
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > bit-notation
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (int32,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a
> different
> > > > type
> > > > > on
> > > > > > >> >> > different
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > platforms
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often when
> > > using
> > > > > ODBC
> > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > example).
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
> > 1:34
> > > PM
> > > > > > Pavel
> > > > > > >> >> > > Tupitsyn
> > > > > > >> >> > > > <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should
> support
> > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > >> >> data
> > > > > > >> >> > > > types:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt,
> > uLong
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have
> them,
> > > but
> > > > > many
> > > > > > >> >> other
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > languages
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > do,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing
> > number
> > > > of
> > > > > > thin
> > > > > > >> >> > clients
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > this
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in current
> > > > > > Ignite.NET
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > implementation
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain
> > > when
> > > > it
> > > > > > >> comes
> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > metadata,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > binary
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to
> > deserialize
> > > > int
> > > > > as
> > > > > > >> uint
> > > > > > >> >> > when
> > > > > > >> >> > > > you
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > class,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
> > > 12:28
> > > > > PM
> > > > > > >> >> Andrey
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Mashenkov <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both
> > > > serializers
> > > > > > use
> > > > > > >> >> > > reflection
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will
> allow
> > > > users
> > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > configure
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > static
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > along
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still
> > > need
> > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> validate
> > > > > > >> >> > > user
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > classes
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > client
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in
> > the
> > > > grid
> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > reflection
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few
> > > articles
> > > > > on
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> >> > > internet
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > on
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > how
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task
> for
> > > > > > supporting
> > > > > > >> >> > > GraalVM,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > maybe
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM
> > > will
> > > > > > >> suggest a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > solution
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > or
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proper
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit
> later.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is
> > > found,
> > > > we
> > > > > > >> could
> > > > > > >> >> > allow
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > users
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > write
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > own
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I
> don't
> > > > think
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > >> >> a
> > > > > > >> >> > > good
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > idea
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > expose
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the
> public.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020
> at
> > > > 2:55
> > > > > AM
> > > > > > >> >> Denis
> > > > > > >> >> > > > Magda <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for
> > the
> > > > > > update,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the
> > > > serializers
> > > > > > >> take
> > > > > > >> >> into
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > consideration
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > native-image-generation
> > > > > > >> feature of
> > > > > > >> >> > > > GraalVM?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current
> > binary
> > > > > > >> >> marshaller,
> > > > > > >> >> > we
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > can't
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > even
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > generate
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using
> > our
> > > > thin
> > > > > > >> client
> > > > > > >> >> > > APIs.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23,
> 2020
> > at
> > > > > 4:39
> > > > > > AM
> > > > > > >> >> > Andrey
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to
> > continue
> > > > > > >> discussion
> > > > > > >> >> of
> > > > > > >> >> > > > IEP-54
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who
> > is
> > > > > > >> interested
> > > > > > >> >> > had a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > chance
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not
> > > hesitate
> > > > > to
> > > > > > >> ask
> > > > > > >> >> > > > questions
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > share
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a
> > > > prototype
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> >> > > serializer
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > [2]
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > data
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I
> > > compared
> > > > 2
> > > > > > >> >> approaches
> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > (de)serialize
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java
> > > > > reflection/unsafe
> > > > > > >> API
> > > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > similar
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second
> one
> > > > > > generates
> > > > > > >> >> > > serializer
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library
> for
> > > > > > >> compilation.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows
> > > better
> > > > > > >> results
> > > > > > >> >> in
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > benchmarks.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go
> > > with
> > > > it
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > >> >> > default
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > serializer
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation
> as a
> > > > > > fallback
> > > > > > >> if
> > > > > > >> >> > > someone
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a
> number
> > of
> > > > > tasks
> > > > > > >> >> under
> > > > > > >> >> > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > umbrella
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ticket
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to
> > > > create
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > >> >> > tickets
> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > manager
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation,
> but
> > > > would
> > > > > > >> like
> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > clarify
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > details.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought
> > > schemaManager
> > > > > on
> > > > > > >> each
> > > > > > >> >> > node
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > should
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > held:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local
> mapping
> > of
> > > > > > "schema
> > > > > > >> >> > > version"
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > <-->
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > validated
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2. Cluster-wide
> > > > schema
> > > > > > >> changes
> > > > > > >> >> > > > history.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client
> side.
> > > > > Before
> > > > > > >> any
> > > > > > >> >> > > > key-value
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > operation
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a
> given
> > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > >> >> pair.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no
> > > > > > local-mapping
> > > > > > >> >> exists
> > > > > > >> >> > > > for a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > given
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide
> schema
> > > > has a
> > > > > > >> more
> > > > > > >> >> > recent
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > version
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be
> validated
> > > > > against
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> >> > > latest
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > version
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> updated/actualized.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object
> > doesn't
> > > > fit
> > > > > to
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> >> > > latest
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > schema
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > depends
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail
> > the
> > > > > > >> operation
> > > > > > >> >> > > > ('strict'
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > mode)
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a new
> > > > schema
> > > > > > >> version
> > > > > > >> >> > > should
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > be
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > propagated
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server
> side
> > we
> > > > > > usually
> > > > > > >> >> have
> > > > > > >> >> > no
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > classes
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change
> > > > history
> > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > available
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > tuple
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to
> > > > upgrade
> > > > > > any
> > > > > > >> >> > > received
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > tuple
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > last
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could
> allow
> > > > nodes
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> send
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > key-value
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > pairs
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't
> > receive a
> > > > > > schema
> > > > > > >> >> update
> > > > > > >> >> > > > yet)
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > reverting
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node
> with
> > > > newer
> > > > > > >> >> classes.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan
> did
> > > you
> > > > > > mean
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> >> > > same?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17,
> > 2020
> > > at
> > > > > > 9:21
> > > > > > >> AM
> > > > > > >> >> > Ivan
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not
> > > ignore
> > > > > > >> history.
> > > > > > >> >> We
> > > > > > >> >> > > had
> > > > > > >> >> > > > a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can
> > > resume
> > > > > it.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08
> > > > > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > > >> >> Denis
> > > > > > >> >> > > > Magda
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes
> > sense,
> > > > > > thanks
> > > > > > >> for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > explaining.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we
> > > need
> > > > to
> > > > > > >> have a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > separate
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms
> > > > > > >> substitution.
> > > > > > >> >> > I'll
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > appreciate
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing
> > pointers
> > > to
> > > > > any
> > > > > > >> >> > relevant
> > > > > > >> >> > > > IEPs
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > reasoning
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep
> 8,
> > > 2020
> > > > > at
> > > > > > >> 6:01
> > > > > > >> >> PM
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the
> > > > wording
> > > > > in
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> >> IEP
> > > > > > >> >> > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > little
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > bit
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you
> > should
> > > > not
> > > > > > >> create
> > > > > > >> >> > > nested
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > POJOs,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO
> > that
> > > > is
> > > > > > >> mapped
> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are
> not
> > > > > > supported.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is
> this
> > > > > correct?
> > > > > > >> >> Please
> > > > > > >> >> > > let
> > > > > > >> >> > > > me
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > know
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the
> > > "cache"
> > > > > > >> term, I
> > > > > > >> >> > agree
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > that
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can
> > > > replace
> > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> with.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > "Table"
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > tightly
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is
> > optional
> > > in
> > > > > our
> > > > > > >> >> case.
> > > > > > >> >> > Do
> > > > > > >> >> > > > you
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > want
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > create a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep
> 8,
> > > > 2020
> > > > > at
> > > > > > >> >> 4:37 PM
> > > > > > >> >> > > > Denis
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've
> checked
> > > the
> > > > > IEP
> > > > > > >> again
> > > > > > >> >> > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > have a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > few
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > questions.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary
> > > nested
> > > > > > >> objects
> > > > > > >> >> and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > collections
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested
> > POJOs
> > > > > should
> > > > > > >> >> either
> > > > > > >> >> > be
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > inlined
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you
> > > > provide a
> > > > > > DDL
> > > > > > >> >> code
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > snippet
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > showing
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to
> > > work?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we
> keep
> > > > using
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> terms
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > "cache"
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right
> > time
> > > to
> > > > > > >> discuss
> > > > > > >> >> an
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > alternate
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally,
> > the
> > > > > > "table"
> > > > > > >> >> > should
> > > > > > >> >> > > > stay
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is
> > one
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > primary
> > > > > > >> >> > > > APIs
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > in
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > out-of-the-box.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep
> > 7,
> > > > 2020
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > >> >> 12:26
> > > > > > >> >> > PM
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> >> > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see
> your
> > > > > point. I
> > > > > > >> >> agree
> > > > > > >> >> > > that
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > with
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > automatic
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> schema-last
> > > > > > >> territory.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually,
> > if
> > > we
> > > > > > >> support
> > > > > > >> >> > > > automatic
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > evolution,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating
> a
> > > > cache
> > > > > > >> without
> > > > > > >> >> > > schema
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > inferring
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other
> > words,
> > > we
> > > > > can
> > > > > > >> have
> > > > > > >> >> > both
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey,
> > what
> > > do
> > > > > you
> > > > > > >> >> think?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon,
> Sep
> > > 7,
> > > > > 2020
> > > > > > >> at
> > > > > > >> >> 5:59
> > > > > > >> >> > > AM
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Alexey
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >> >> [hidden email]
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank
> > you,
> > > I
> > > > > got
> > > > > > >> your
> > > > > > >> >> > > concern
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > now.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > As
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > terminology,
> > > > I
> > > > > am
> > > > > > >> >> > > absolutely
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > fine
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the
> > > approach
> > > > > > best.
> > > > > > >> >> > Dynamic
> > > > > > >> >> > > or
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > evolving
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > corresponding
> > > > > > >> changes
> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > IEP
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > once
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > settle
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7
> > сент.
> > > > > 2020
> > > > > > >> г. в
> > > > > > >> >> > > 11:33,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Ivan
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> [hidden email]
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi
> Val,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank
> > you
> > > > for
> > > > > > >> your
> > > > > > >> >> > > answer!
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My
> > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > >> >> a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > little
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > bit
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > different.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > definitely
> > > > > > >> should be
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > possible.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > But
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > see
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> schema
> > is
> > > > > > >> updated".
> > > > > > >> >> I
> > > > > > >> >> > > > treat a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > common
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > data
> > > > > > >> >> manipulation
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > operations
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > clearly
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > interesting
> > > > > > >> >> > capabilities,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > e.g.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > preventing
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > mistaken
> > > > data
> > > > > > >> >> > operations,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > restricting
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> schema.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > Schema-first
> > > > > > >> means
> > > > > > >> >> > that
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > schema
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > exists
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > compliant
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> >> it -
> > > > > > >> >> > > > that's
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A
> > > > schema-last
> > > > > > >> >> approach
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > mentioned
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> exists,
> > > but
> > > > > it
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > inferred
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > from
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > data.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > proposing
> > > > > > >> approach?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I
> > > would
> > > > > > like
> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > >> >> > say,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > that
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > my
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > terminology.
> > > > > > And
> > > > > > >> I
> > > > > > >> >> > > suppose
> > > > > > >> >> > > > if
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > confuses
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > confused
> > > as
> > > > > > >> well. My
> > > > > > >> >> > > > feeling
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > closer
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > evolving
> > > > > > schema".
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > 2020-09-07
> > > > > 0:47
> > > > > > >> >> > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi
> > > Ivan,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I
> > don't
> > > > see
> > > > > > an
> > > > > > >> >> issue
> > > > > > >> >> > > with
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > that.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > advance
> > > > and
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > stored
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > data
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > compliant
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is
> > > > > proposed.
> > > > > > >> There
> > > > > > >> >> > are
> > > > > > >> >> > > no
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > restrictions
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> -Val
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On
> > Sat,
> > > > Sep
> > > > > > 5,
> > > > > > >> >> 2020
> > > > > > >> >> > at
> > > > > > >> >> > > > 9:52
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > PM
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ivan
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > Alexey,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I
> > am a
> > > > > > little
> > > > > > >> bit
> > > > > > >> >> > > > confused
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> to a
> > > > > survey
> > > > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > >> >> (see
> > > > > > >> >> > > > part
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > X
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Semi
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Structured
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > really
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a
> > > > "dynamic
> > > > > > >> >> schema"
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > approach
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > as a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > kind
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> [1]
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > 2020-09-02
> > > > > > >> 1:53
> > > > > > >> >> > > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > However,
> > > > > > >> could
> > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > please
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > ORM?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > Is
> > > > > there
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> use
> > > > > > >> >> > case
> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > (I
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > seen
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > one
> > > > so
> > > > > > >> far)?
> > > > > > >> >> If
> > > > > > >> >> > so,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > what
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > support
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > this?
> > > > > In
> > > > > > my
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > have.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > Am
> > > I
> > > > > > >> missing
> > > > > > >> >> > > > something?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > Good
> > > > > > point,
> > > > > > >> >> yes,
> > > > > > >> >> > if
> > > > > > >> >> > > > all
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > ORM
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > internally,
> > > > > > >> >> then
> > > > > > >> >> > > they
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > can
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > easily
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > translate
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> INSERT/UPDATE
> > > > > > >> >> > > > statement
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > that
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > lists
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > our
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > Spring
> > > > > > Data
> > > > > > >> >> > > > integration
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > based
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > APIs
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > needs
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> to
> > > be
> > > > > > >> improved
> > > > > > >> >> > once
> > > > > > >> >> > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > solve
> > > > a
> > > > > > ton
> > > > > > >> of
> > > > > > >> >> > > > usability
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> I
> > > > would
> > > > > > >> revise
> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> dev
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > phase.
> > > > > > Can't
> > > > > > >> >> say
> > > > > > >> >> > if
> > > > > > >> >> > > > it's
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > used
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > lot
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > getting
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > traction
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > sure.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > @Michael
> > > > > > >> >> Pollind,
> > > > > > >> >> > > I'll
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > loop
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > long
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> support
> > > > > > >> >> for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Micornaut
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > came
> > > > > > across
> > > > > > >> >> some
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > challenges.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Just
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > watch
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > That's
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > coming
> > > > > in
> > > > > > >> >> Ignite
> > > > > > >> >> > > 3.0.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> -
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > Denis
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> On
> > > > Mon,
> > > > > > Aug
> > > > > > >> 31,
> > > > > > >> >> > 2020
> > > > > > >> >> > > > at
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > 5:11
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > Hi
> > > > > Denis,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > Generally
> > > > > > >> >> > > speaking, I
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> natively
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > addresses
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> >> > issue
> > > > > > >> >> > > > if
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > duplicate
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > because
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > schema
> > > > > > >> will be
> > > > > > >> >> > > > created
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > cache,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> now.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > Basically,
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> >> > > schema
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > define
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > whether
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > not,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > and
> > > > > which
> > > > > > >> >> fields
> > > > > > >> >> > > are
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > included
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > would
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > have
> > > > > must
> > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > >> >> > > > compliant
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > this,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > with
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > data
> > > > as
> > > > > > >> with a
> > > > > > >> >> > set
> > > > > > >> >> > > of
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > records,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > However,
> > > > > > >> could
> > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > please
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > ORM?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > Is
> > > > > there
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > >> use
> > > > > > >> >> > case
> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > (I
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > seen
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > one
> > > > so
> > > > > > >> far)?
> > > > > > >> >> If
> > > > > > >> >> > so,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > what
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > support
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > this?
> > > > > In
> > > > > > my
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > have.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > Am
> > > I
> > > > > > >> missing
> > > > > > >> >> > > > something?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > -Val
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > On
> > > > Mon,
> > > > > > Aug
> > > > > > >> >> 31,
> > > > > > >> >> > > 2020
> > > > > > >> >> > > > at
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > 2:08
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > Val,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > I
> > > > > would
> > > > > > >> >> propose
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > adding
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > another
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > point
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > list
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > > related
> > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > >> >> > > ORM
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > frameworks
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > Micronaut
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > many
> > > > > > >> others.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > > > >> Presently,
> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > storage
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > engine
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requires
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > from
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > value
> > > > > > >> ones
> > > > > > >> >> that
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > complicate
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > > > >> frameworks
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > > > >> (especially
> > > > > > >> >> if
> > > > > > >> >> > a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > key
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > object
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > comprises
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > More
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> can
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > be
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > found
> > > > > > >> here:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > It
> > > > > will
> > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > >> >> nice
> > > > > > >> >> > > if
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > new
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> with
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > > single
> > > > > > >> >> entity
> > > > > > >> >> > > > object
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > when
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > comes
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > split
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > > entity
> > > > > > >> into
> > > > > > >> >> a
> > > > > > >> >> > key
> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > value.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Just
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > 3.0
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > has
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > all
> > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > essential
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > public
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > APIs
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > single-entity
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > based
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > > > approach.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > What
> > > > > do
> > > > > > >> you
> > > > > > >> >> > > think?
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > -
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > Denis
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > On
> > > > > Fri,
> > > > > > >> Aug
> > > > > > >> >> 28,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > 2020
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > at
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > 3:50
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > PM
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >
> > > > > > >> Igniters,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >
> > > > One
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > >> the
> > > > > > >> >> > big
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > changes
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proposed
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> "schema-first
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > approach".
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > To
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >
> > > > > > started
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> writing
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >
> > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > IEP
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >
> > > > for
> > > > > > >> this
> > > > > > >> >> > > change:
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >
> > > > > > Please
> > > > > > >> >> take a
> > > > > > >> >> > > > look
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > let
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >
> > > > > > >> thoughts,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> suggestions,
> > > > > > >> >> > or
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > objections.
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >
> > > > > -Val
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> --
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> Best
> > > > > > regards,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> Ivan
> > > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best
> > > > regards,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan
> > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V.
> Mashenkov
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > --
> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > > --
> > > > > > >> >> > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > >> >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >
>

--
Best regards,
Andrey V. Mashenkov

[Andrew Mashenkov]

Hi Igniters,

I've create a ticket [1] for large row support.

We use 2-bytes offsets for varlen fields that are supposed to be large
enough.
AFAIK, some users use multi-MB values and 64k per Row looks like a strong
limitation.

So, we have either to increase offset_size up to 4-bytes or use some
advanced mechanics for compression or adaptive offset_size.

1. Increasing offset size may add overhead for keys like next:
class Key {
   int id;
   String str; // Some short string code.
}

2. Compression will require table to be decompressed on every varlen column
access, e.g. for comparison purposes while index scan.
Also, we may need to pre-calculate compressed table size to avoid buffer
copying (shrinking or extending) during row assembling.

3. Adaptive offset_size implies row size estimation.
We already do to reduce the probability of buffer expanding, but we need a
high margin for this purpose.
'String' values size is a hard part as String character may be encoded into
1-4 bytes depending on Charset.

Usually, a user don't want to care about Column length limitation and chars
collation.
So, we can expect a Java default behavior will be used in most cases:
'unlimited' string size with up to 4-bytes characters support.

Possible strategies
3.1 Introduce 'Collation' for string and validate all the chars on row
assembling and rely on the user limited column length.
Thus, we can use varlen limits (+ collation for strings) to estimate row
size and pre-calculate offset_size to keep it within the schema.
3.2 Introduce more row flags for different offset sizes (byte, short, int)
and calculate row size right before assembling for choosing appropriate
offset_size.
Heuristics for strings using collation is also applicable here and keep
algorithm complexity independent from the data length, but the schema only.

I like an approach '3.2' because we already estimate row size.
Any thoughts?

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14743

On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 7:25 PM Andrey Mashenkov <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Igniters,
> I've prepared PR [1] with Public Table API for final review.
>
> Main points
> There are 4 projection interfaces over Table for different use-cases
> (Plain record vs Key-Value and POJO vs Binary object) declaring synchronous
> and asynchronous methods.
> Async method returns IgniteFuture as there is no consensus on IgniteFuture
> vs JDK CompletableFuture yet.
> API implementation is incomplete, it just an example of how it could be
> done and will be implemented in future tasks.
> Tuple/TupleAssembler renamed to Row/RowAssembler. Now Tuple is just a
> dictionary representing a subset of columns, while Row is a schema-aware
> object containing key and value columns respectively to the data layout.
>
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:26 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> I see, thanks.
>>
>> Let's discuss the return type - Future is not the one to use.
>> We should return CompletionStage, CompletableFuture, or introduce our own
>> interface.
>> We agreed on the last one (custom interface) for thin clients:
>>
>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/IEP-51-Java-Thin-Client-Async-API-td48900.html
>>
>> I believe that for Ignite 3.0 we should have the following:
>> public interface IgniteFuture<T> extends Future<T>, CompletionStage<T> {
>>     // No-op.
>> }
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:16 AM Andrey Mashenkov <
>> [hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > Pavel,
>> > There are 2 PR's for the ticket[1] with two different APIs  suggested.
>> > Please, take a look at PR [2].
>> >
>> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14035
>> > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/69
>> >
>> > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:11 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Andrey, I can't find any async methods,
>> > > can you please check if the changes are pushed?
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 10:06 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
>> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Pavel, good point.
>> > > > Thanks. I've added async methods.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 2:29 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
>> [hidden email]>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Andrey,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > What about corresponding async APIs, do we add them now or later?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 8:11 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
>> > > > > [hidden email]>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Hi Igniters.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I've created a PR for Table access API [1].
>> > > > > > This is an initial version. So, any suggestions\objections are
>> > > > welcomed.
>> > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to write your comments and\or examples
>> to
>> > the
>> > > > PR.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Ignite-api module contains API classes, e.g. TableView classes
>> as
>> > > > > > projections for a table for different purposes.
>> > > > > > Ignite-table contains dummy implementation and Example class
>> > > explained
>> > > > > how
>> > > > > > it is supposed to be used.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Also, I'm still waiting for any feedback for Schema
>> configuration
>> > > > public
>> > > > > > API PR [2].
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/33
>> > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:05 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
>> > > > > > [hidden email]>
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I've updated a PR regarding your feedback [1].
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:58 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
>> > > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> Folks,
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> I updated the IEP to contain the missing pieces; actually,
>> most
>> > of
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > >> questions here were covered by the text. Please let me know
>> if
>> > > there
>> > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> something still missing or unclear.
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> чт, 31 дек. 2020 г. в 12:48, Alexey Goncharuk <
>> > > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > >> >:
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> > Mikhail and Igniters,
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> > Thanks for your comments. The questions are reasonable,
>> > though I
>> > > > > think
>> > > > > > >> all
>> > > > > > >> > concerns are addressed by the IEP as Val mentioned. I will
>> > > update
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> > document according to your questions in the following week
>> or
>> > > so,
>> > > > so
>> > > > > > we
>> > > > > > >> can
>> > > > > > >> > have a constructive discussion further.
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> > ср, 30 дек. 2020 г. в 11:45, Michael Cherkasov <
>> > > > > > >> > [hidden email]>:
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> Hi Val, Andrey,
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> thank you for clarifying.
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> I still have a few comments.
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> 1. one table == one schema. KV vs SQL:
>> > > > > > >> >> Looks like all agreed that KV is just a special case of a
>> > > regular
>> > > > > > table
>> > > > > > >> >> with (blob,blob) schema.
>> > > > > > >> >> I worry about the case when the user starts from KV case
>> and
>> > > > later
>> > > > > > will
>> > > > > > >> >> try
>> > > > > > >> >> to expand it and try to leverage SQL for the existing KV
>> > table
>> > > it
>> > > > > > >> won't be
>> > > > > > >> >> able to do so and will require to reload data. which isn't
>> > > > > convenient
>> > > > > > >> and
>> > > > > > >> >> sometimes not even possible. Is it possible to extract a
>> new
>> > > > field
>> > > > > > from
>> > > > > > >> >> (blob, blob) schema and apply index on it?
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> 2. Could you please also list all ways of schema
>> definition
>> > in
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > >> IEP? It
>> > > > > > >> >> significant change and I bet the main point of this IEP,
>> > > everyone
>> > > > > > hates
>> > > > > > >> >> QueryEntities, they are difficult to manage and in
>> general,
>> > > it's
>> > > > > very
>> > > > > > >> >> confusing to have a data model(schemas) and node/cluster
>> > > > > > configuration
>> > > > > > >> in
>> > > > > > >> >> one place.
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> So there will be SchemaBuilder and SQL to define schemas,
>> but
>> > > > > Andrey
>> > > > > > >> also
>> > > > > > >> >> mentioned annotations.
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> I personally against configuration via annotations, while
>> > it's
>> > > > > > >> convenient
>> > > > > > >> >> for development, it difficult to manage because different
>> > > classes
>> > > > > can
>> > > > > > >> be
>> > > > > > >> >> deployed on different clients/servers nodes and it can
>> lead
>> > to
>> > > > > > >> >> unpredictable results.
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> 3. IEP doesn't mention field type changes, only drop/add
>> > > fields.
>> > > > > > Field
>> > > > > > >> >> type
>> > > > > > >> >> changes are extremely painful right now(if even
>> possible), so
>> > > it
>> > > > > > would
>> > > > > > >> be
>> > > > > > >> >> nice if some scenarios would be supported(like
>> int8->int16,
>> > or
>> > > > > > >> >> int8->String).
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> 4. got it, I thought IEP will have more details about the
>> > > > > > >> implementation.
>> > > > > > >> >> I've seen Andrey even sent benchmark results for a new
>> > > > > serialization,
>> > > > > > >> will
>> > > > > > >> >> ping him about this.
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> 5. Thanks for the clarification. I had a wrong
>> understanding
>> > of
>> > > > > > strick
>> > > > > > >> >> mode.
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> вт, 29 дек. 2020 г. в 19:32, Valentin Kulichenko <
>> > > > > > >> >> [hidden email]>:
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > Hi Mike,
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > Thanks for providing your feedback. Please see my
>> comments
>> > > > below.
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > I would also encourage you to go through the IEP-54 [1]
>> -
>> > it
>> > > > has
>> > > > > a
>> > > > > > >> lot
>> > > > > > >> >> of
>> > > > > > >> >> > detail on the topic.
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > [1]
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > -Val
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:22 PM Michael Cherkasov <
>> > > > > > >> >> > [hidden email]> wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > Hi all,
>> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > I reviewed the mail thread and proposal page and I
>> still
>> > > > don't
>> > > > > > >> fully
>> > > > > > >> >> > > understand what is going to be changed, I would really
>> > > > > appreciate
>> > > > > > >> it
>> > > > > > >> >> if
>> > > > > > >> >> > you
>> > > > > > >> >> > > will answer a few questions:
>> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > 1. Are you going to leave only one schema per cache?
>> if
>> > so,
>> > > > > will
>> > > > > > be
>> > > > > > >> >> there
>> > > > > > >> >> > > an option to have a table with arbitrary objects(pure
>> KV
>> > > > case)?
>> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > My opinion is that KV case should be natively
>> supported. I
>> > > > think
>> > > > > > this
>> > > > > > >> >> still
>> > > > > > >> >> > needs to be thought over, my current view on this is
>> that
>> > we
>> > > > > should
>> > > > > > >> have
>> > > > > > >> >> > separate APIs for KV and more generic storages. KV
>> storage
>> > > can
>> > > > be
>> > > > > > >> >> > implemented as a "table" with two BLOB fields where we
>> will
>> > > > store
>> > > > > > >> >> > serialized key-value pairs. That would imply
>> > deserialization
>> > > on
>> > > > > > read,
>> > > > > > >> >> but I
>> > > > > > >> >> > believe this is OK for KV use cases. I'm happy to hear
>> > other
>> > > > > ideas
>> > > > > > >> >> though
>> > > > > > >> >> > :)
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0 have to define
>> > > schema?
>> > > > > > >> >> > SchemaBuilder
>> > > > > > >> >> > > and SQL only? Is there an option to put the schema
>> > > definition
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > configuration?(I really don't like this, I would
>> prefer
>> > to
>> > > > have
>> > > > > > >> >> > > separate scripts to create schemas)
>> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > There will be no such thing as a static configuration in
>> > the
>> > > > > first
>> > > > > > >> >> place.
>> > > > > > >> >> > Tables and schemas are created in runtime. Even if there
>> > is a
>> > > > > file
>> > > > > > >> >> provided
>> > > > > > >> >> > on node startup, this file is only applied in the scope
>> of
>> > > the
>> > > > > > >> 'start'
>> > > > > > >> >> > operation. All configurations will be stored in a meta
>> > > storage
>> > > > > > >> >> available to
>> > > > > > >> >> > all nodes, as opposed to individual files.
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > 3. Is there a way to change field type? if yes, can
>> it be
>> > > > done
>> > > > > in
>> > > > > > >> >> > runtime?
>> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > Absolutely! IEP-54 has a whole section about schema
>> > > evolution.
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going to be
>> re-worked
>> > > too,
>> > > > is
>> > > > > > >> there
>> > > > > > >> >> any
>> > > > > > >> >> > > IEP for this?
>> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > BinaryMarshaller as a tool for arbitrary object
>> > serialization
>> > > > > will
>> > > > > > be
>> > > > > > >> >> gone,
>> > > > > > >> >> > but we will reuse a lot of its concept to implement an
>> > > internal
>> > > > > > tuple
>> > > > > > >> >> > serialization mechanism. IEP-54 has the description of
>> the
>> > > > > proposed
>> > > > > > >> data
>> > > > > > >> >> > format.
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > 5. I don't like automatic schema evaluation when a new
>> > > field
>> > > > is
>> > > > > > >> added
>> > > > > > >> >> > > automatically on record put, so is there a way to
>> > prohibit
>> > > > this
>> > > > > > >> >> behavior?
>> > > > > > >> >> > >  I think all schema changes should be done only
>> > explicitly
>> > > > > except
>> > > > > > >> >> initial
>> > > > > > >> >> > > schema creation.
>> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > The way I see it is that we should have two modes:
>> > > schema-first
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > schema-last. Schema-first means exactly what you've
>> > > described -
>> > > > > > >> schemas
>> > > > > > >> >> are
>> > > > > > >> >> > defined and updated explicitly by the user. In the
>> > > schema-last
>> > > > > > mode,
>> > > > > > >> >> > the user does not deal with schemas, as they are
>> inferred
>> > > from
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> data
>> > > > > > >> >> > inserted into tables. We should definitely not mix these
>> > > modes
>> > > > -
>> > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> has
>> > > > > > >> >> to
>> > > > > > >> >> > be one or another. And it probably makes sense to
>> discuss
>> > > which
>> > > > > > mode
>> > > > > > >> >> should
>> > > > > > >> >> > be the default one.
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > Thanks,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > Mike.
>> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey Mashenkov <
>> > > > > > >> >> > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > >> >> > > >:
>> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > Hi, Igniters.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > We all know that the current QueryEntity API is not
>> > > > > convenient
>> > > > > > >> and
>> > > > > > >> >> > needs
>> > > > > > >> >> > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > be reworked.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema
>> configuration
>> > > > public
>> > > > > > API
>> > > > > > >> >> for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > Ignite 3.0.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > New schema configuration uses Builder pattern, which
>> > > looks
>> > > > > more
>> > > > > > >> >> > > comfortable
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > to use.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package with the
>> API
>> > > > > itself,
>> > > > > > >> and
>> > > > > > >> >> a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > draft
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > and a test that demonstrates how the API could be
>> used.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > Please note:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with static
>> > > factory
>> > > > > > >> methods.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > * The implementation is decoupled and can be easily
>> > > > extracted
>> > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > separate
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > module if we decide to do so.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are missed,
>> they
>> > > will
>> > > > > be
>> > > > > > >> added
>> > > > > > >> >> > > lately
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > in separate tickes.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Index configuration extends marker interface that
>> > makes
>> > > > > > >> possible
>> > > > > > >> >> to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > Hopfully, we could add a persistent geo-indices
>> support
>> > > in
>> > > > > > >> future.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Supposedly, current table schema can be changed
>> via
>> > > > > > >> builder-like
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See
>> > > > > > >> >> 'TableModificationBuilder'
>> > > > > > >> >> > > for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > details.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have 'toBuilder()'
>> > > > > converter
>> > > > > > >> for
>> > > > > > >> >> that
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > purpose as it is a Schema Manager responsibility to
>> > > create
>> > > > > > >> mutator
>> > > > > > >> >> > > objects
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > from the current schema,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > but implementing the Schema manager is out of scope
>> and
>> > > > will
>> > > > > be
>> > > > > > >> >> > designed
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > within the next task.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Interfaces implementations are out of scope. I did
>> > not
>> > > > > intend
>> > > > > > >> to
>> > > > > > >> >> > merge
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > them right now, but for test/demostration purposes.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > It is NOT the final version and some may be changed
>> > > before
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> first
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > release of course.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed with
>> this
>> > > > > approach
>> > > > > > or
>> > > > > > >> >> some
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > issues should be resolved at first.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > Any thoughts or objections?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > Are interfaces good enough to be merged within the
>> > > current
>> > > > > > >> ticket?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
>> > > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <
>> > > > > > >> [hidden email]>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 2. It requires adding new types to the internal
>> > > > > > representation,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > protocol,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > e.t.c.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 3. internal representation should be the same as
>> we
>> > > keep
>> > > > > sign
>> > > > > > >> >> types.
>> > > > > > >> >> > So
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > will not requires more memory
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such types
>> for
>> > > > > platforms
>> > > > > > >> >> which
>> > > > > > >> >> > not
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > support unsigned types. For example, a user could
>> > > derive
>> > > > -6
>> > > > > > >> value
>> > > > > > >> >> in
>> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits perspective
>> > will
>> > > > be
>> > > > > > >> >> right). I
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > think
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such cases,
>> > > > especially
>> > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> will be
>> > > > > > >> >> > > bad
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for unsigned long when we require returns
>> BigInteger
>> > > > type.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix for
>> new
>> > > types
>> > > > > > like
>> > > > > > >> a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > '250u' -
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive
>> comparison
>> > > > logic
>> > > > > > for
>> > > > > > >> >> > indexes
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for
>> expressions.
>> > I
>> > > > > think
>> > > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> not
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > possible for the current H2 engine and probably
>> > > possible
>> > > > > for
>> > > > > > >> the
>> > > > > > >> >> new
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from anybody
>> who
>> > > > > involved
>> > > > > > in
>> > > > > > >> >> this
>> > > > > > >> >> > > part
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > WDYT?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey Goncharuk <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0:
>> once
>> > we
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > >> actual
>> > > > > > >> >> > type
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > information, we can make proper runtime
>> adjustments
>> > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> conversions
>> > > > > > >> >> > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will be
>> just a
>> > > bit
>> > > > > more
>> > > > > > >> >> > > expensive.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <
>> > > > > > >> >> [hidden email]
>> > > > > > >> >> > >:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons
>> and so
>> > > on
>> > > > > are
>> > > > > > >> >> broken
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned
>> this
>> > > > > > somewhere
>> > > > > > >> >> > above.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document that
>> SQL is
>> > > not
>> > > > > > >> >> supported
>> > > > > > >> >> > on
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > those
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > types,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > end of story.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey
>> Goncharuk
>> > <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable
>> request. I
>> > > > > thought
>> > > > > > >> about
>> > > > > > >> >> > this
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > when
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > I
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add
>> > these
>> > > > > types
>> > > > > > >> right
>> > > > > > >> >> > > away.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the
>> > > > beginning
>> > > > > > with
>> > > > > > >> >> .NET
>> > > > > > >> >> > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > C++
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > :)
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually works as
>> > > > > expected,
>> > > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> needs
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > some
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns are
>> > false):
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - It's true that equality check works
>> > > properly,
>> > > > > but
>> > > > > > >> for
>> > > > > > >> >> SQL
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > range
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    queries it will break unless some special
>> > care
>> > > > is
>> > > > > > >> taken
>> > > > > > >> >> on
>> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > side:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will
>> be
>> > > > > converted
>> > > > > > >> to
>> > > > > > >> >> -1,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > which
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we don't have
>> > > > unsigned
>> > > > > > >> types
>> > > > > > >> >> > now,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > I
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > doubt
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    works.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - There is an obvious cross-platform data
>> > loss
>> > > > > when
>> > > > > > >> >> > > "intuitive"
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > type
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8
>> corresponds to
>> > > > byte
>> > > > > > >> type in
>> > > > > > >> >> > > .NET,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > but
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have to
>> use
>> > > short
>> > > > > > type
>> > > > > > >> in
>> > > > > > >> >> > Java,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    will also need to take care of the range
>> > check
>> > > > > > during
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > serialization).
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > I
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    think we can even allow to try to
>> > deserialize
>> > > a
>> > > > > > value
>> > > > > > >> >> into
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > arbitrary
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > type,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    but throw an exception if the range is
>> out
>> > of
>> > > > > > bounds.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once
>> all
>> > the
>> > > > > > details
>> > > > > > >> >> are
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > settled
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > here?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey
>> Mashenkov
>> > <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't
>> be
>> > > > treated
>> > > > > > >> >> correctly
>> > > > > > >> >> > > for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > now
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I think we could make "true" support for
>> > > unsigned
>> > > > > > >> types,
>> > > > > > >> >> but
>> > > > > > >> >> > > they
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map
>> uint64
>> > to
>> > > > > Java
>> > > > > > >> long
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > primitive,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > but
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > BigInteger only.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64 to
>> Java
>> > > > long,
>> > > > > > but
>> > > > > > >> >> treat
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > negative
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > values in a different way to preserve
>> correct
>> > > > > > ordering.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > These limitations will affect only mixed
>> > > > > environments
>> > > > > > >> when
>> > > > > > >> >> > .Net
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Java
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > used to access the data.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Will this solution address your issues?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel
>> > Tupitsyn
>> > > <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the
>> > > > > beginning
>> > > > > > >> with
>> > > > > > >> >> > .NET
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > C++
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > :)
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as cache
>> > keys
>> > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> values,
>> > > > > > >> >> > as
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > fields
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > properties,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y
>> > > clauses)
>> > > > -
>> > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> works
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > transparently
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the users.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats those
>> > > values
>> > > > > as
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > corresponding
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > signed
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > types.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in some
>> > cases
>> > > > > only
>> > > > > > >> >> because
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > there
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > are
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > no
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very simple
>> > > change
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > protocol
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > -
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > add
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > type
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as
>> signed
>> > > > > > >> >> counterparts.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey
>> > > > Mashenkov
>> > > > > <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise
>> > > > > > >> representation
>> > > > > > >> >> is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > same)
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a
>> > uByte
>> > > > > field
>> > > > > > >> and
>> > > > > > >> >> map
>> > > > > > >> >> > it
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > 'uint8'
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > column.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to "250"
>> and
>> > > put
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> object
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > into a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > table,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a single
>> > byte
>> > > > > > 'int8'
>> > > > > > >> >> > column.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it
>> to
>> > > > > directly
>> > > > > > >> the
>> > > > > > >> >> Java
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > object
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > field
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8
>> type
>> > to
>> > > > > Java
>> > > > > > >> >> 'short'
>> > > > > > >> >> > > type
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > because the one expected to see "250"
>> as
>> > a
>> > > > > value
>> > > > > > >> which
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > doesn't
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > fit
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > signed type.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a
>> BigInteger
>> > > > field
>> > > > > in
>> > > > > > >> >> Java.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat column
>> value
>> > > as
>> > > > > Java
>> > > > > > >> >> 'byte'
>> > > > > > >> >> > as
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > is,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > because
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a negative
>> > > value,
>> > > > so
>> > > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> should
>> > > > > > >> >> > > be
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > cast
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > short
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger for
>> > > > uint64)
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will require
>> a
>> > > > > different
>> > > > > > >> >> > > comparator.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel
>> > > > Tupitsyn
>> > > > > <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a
>> good
>> > > > idea.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the
>> simple
>> > > > > > approach
>> > > > > > >> I
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > described?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM
>> Andrey
>> > > > > > Mashenkov
>> > > > > > >> <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing range
>> > for
>> > > > > > unsigned
>> > > > > > >> >> types
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > then
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > we
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > could
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > add a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on
>> > schema
>> > > > > level
>> > > > > > >> >> (like
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > nullability
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > flag)
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types in
>> > > > storage.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate
>> storage
>> > > > > > >> type-system
>> > > > > > >> >> and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > binary
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > protocol
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of type
>> > will
>> > > > > match
>> > > > > > 1
>> > > > > > >> to
>> > > > > > >> >> 1
>> > > > > > >> >> > > with
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > storage
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (native)
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either have
>> a
>> > > > > separate
>> > > > > > >> type
>> > > > > > >> >> id
>> > > > > > >> >> > or
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > treat
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > serialized
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed
>> or
>> > > > > unsigned
>> > > > > > >> >> flag).
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever
>> foresee
>> > the
>> > > > > > >> >> consequences
>> > > > > > >> >> > of
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > using
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > types.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned
>> types
>> > > > > > perfectly
>> > > > > > >> >> works
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > with
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > some
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > database,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite
>> successor
>> > > > > > confession
>> > > > > > >> >> with
>> > > > > > >> >> > our
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > "native"
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he can
>> use
>> > the
>> > > > > power
>> > > > > > >> of
>> > > > > > >> >> > Ignite
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Compute
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either
>> fail to
>> > > use
>> > > > > his
>> > > > > > >> >> > unsigned
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > data
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > on
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Java
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > due
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > or
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due to
>> > natural
>> > > > Java
>> > > > > > >> type
>> > > > > > >> >> > system
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > limitations
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > e.g.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively supported
>> > types
>> > > > > with
>> > > > > > >> >> possible
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > value
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > ranges
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is what
>> > trade-off
>> > > > we
>> > > > > > >> found
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > acceptable:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > narrowing
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use types
>> of
>> > > wider
>> > > > > > >> range on
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > systems
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > like
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Java.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM
>> Igor
>> > > > > Sapego <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so
>> hard
>> > > to
>> > > > > > >> implement
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > comparison
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not
>> > seem
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > be a
>> > > > > > >> >> big
>> > > > > > >> >> > > issue
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > from
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > my
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned
>> types
>> > > from
>> > > > > > Java
>> > > > > > >> - I
>> > > > > > >> >> > > think,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > if
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > user
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > uses
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to
>> > interact
>> > > > with
>> > > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> from
>> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > he
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > knows
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > what
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > he
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from
>> > > platforms
>> > > > > > where
>> > > > > > >> >> they
>> > > > > > >> >> > > have
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > native
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > support
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > widely
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where
>> > > users
>> > > > > > >> currently
>> > > > > > >> >> > have
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > make a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > manual
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > casting
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using unsigned
>> > > types
>> > > > > when
>> > > > > > >> they
>> > > > > > >> >> > use
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Ignite.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM
>> > Pavel
>> > > > > > >> Tupitsyn <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for
>> those
>> > > > types
>> > > > > > >> >> > (basically,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > just
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > add
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > more
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java
>> > > > (bitwise
>> > > > > > >> >> > > representation
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > same)
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have
>> unsigned
>> > > > > integers,
>> > > > > > >> so
>> > > > > > >> >> we
>> > > > > > >> >> > can
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > simply
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > say
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative
>> > comparison
>> > > is
>> > > > > not
>> > > > > > >> >> > supported
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > in
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > SQL
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (equality
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40
>> PM
>> > > > Andrey
>> > > > > > >> >> Mashenkov
>> > > > > > >> >> > <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have
>> i8 or
>> > > > int8
>> > > > > > >> >> instead of
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Integer.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't
>> address
>> > > the
>> > > > > > issue.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types
>> should
>> > be
>> > > > > > portable
>> > > > > > >> >> > across
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > different
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > systems
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type
>> support.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is that
>> > > > unsigned
>> > > > > > >> types
>> > > > > > >> >> > cover
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > different
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > ranges.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to
>> > > introduce a
>> > > > > > >> uLong.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big
>> deal
>> > > to
>> > > > > add
>> > > > > > >> uLong
>> > > > > > >> >> > type
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > support
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > at
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > storage
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and
>> > then
>> > > > use
>> > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> in
>> > > > > > >> >> e.g.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > .Net
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > only.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support it
>> in
>> > > e.g.
>> > > > > > Java?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long
>> range
>> > is
>> > > > > about
>> > > > > > >> >> (2^-63
>> > > > > > >> >> > ..
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 2^63)
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > uLong
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > range
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to
>> > > restrict
>> > > > > > range
>> > > > > > >> to
>> > > > > > >> >> (0
>> > > > > > >> >> > ..
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > 2^63).
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > This
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > allows
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but
>> > > > doesn't
>> > > > > > look
>> > > > > > >> >> like
>> > > > > > >> >> > a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 'real'
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uLong
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse
>> when
>> > the
>> > > > > user
>> > > > > > >> will
>> > > > > > >> >> use
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > uByte,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > as
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > limitation
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map
>> > > > unsigned
>> > > > > > >> types
>> > > > > > >> >> to a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > type
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > of
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > wider
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative
>> > values.
>> > > > > E.g.
>> > > > > > >> >> uLong to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > BigInteger.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive
>> Java
>> > > > type
>> > > > > > for
>> > > > > > >> >> Long
>> > > > > > >> >> > > here.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > However,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > still
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8
>> > > bytes,
>> > > > > but
>> > > > > > >> >> have a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > special
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > comparator
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid
>> > unwanted
>> > > > > > >> >> > deserialization.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
>> 2:04 PM
>> > > > Pavel
>> > > > > > >> >> Tupitsyn
>> > > > > > >> >> > <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of
>> > "long,
>> > > > > short,
>> > > > > > >> >> byte"
>> > > > > > >> >> > in
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > protocol
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style,
>> which
>> > is
>> > > > > > concise
>> > > > > > >> >> and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > unambiguous:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
>> 1:58
>> > PM
>> > > > > Igor
>> > > > > > >> >> Sapego <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support that.
>> > Also,
>> > > > if
>> > > > > we
>> > > > > > >> are
>> > > > > > >> >> > > aiming
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger
>> > > platform-independance,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may
>> want
>> > to
>> > > > > > support
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > bit-notation
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (int32,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a
>> different
>> > > > type
>> > > > > on
>> > > > > > >> >> > different
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > platforms
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often when
>> > > using
>> > > > > ODBC
>> > > > > > >> for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > example).
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
>> > 1:34
>> > > PM
>> > > > > > Pavel
>> > > > > > >> >> > > Tupitsyn
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should
>> support
>> > > > > > unsigned
>> > > > > > >> >> data
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > types:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt,
>> > uLong
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have
>> them,
>> > > but
>> > > > > many
>> > > > > > >> >> other
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > languages
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > do,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing
>> > number
>> > > > of
>> > > > > > thin
>> > > > > > >> >> > clients
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > this
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > important.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in
>> current
>> > > > > > Ignite.NET
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > implementation
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > store
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed internally,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge
>> pain
>> > > when
>> > > > it
>> > > > > > >> comes
>> > > > > > >> >> to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > metadata,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > binary
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to
>> > deserialize
>> > > > int
>> > > > > as
>> > > > > > >> uint
>> > > > > > >> >> > when
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > you
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > have
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > class,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020
>> at
>> > > 12:28
>> > > > > PM
>> > > > > > >> >> Andrey
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Mashenkov <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > [hidden email]
>> > > >
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both
>> > > > serializers
>> > > > > > use
>> > > > > > >> >> > > reflection
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will
>> allow
>> > > > users
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > configure
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > static
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > along
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we
>> still
>> > > need
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> validate
>> > > > > > >> >> > > user
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > classes
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > client
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in
>> > the
>> > > > grid
>> > > > > > >> and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > reflection
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > only
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few
>> > > articles
>> > > > > on
>> > > > > > >> the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > internet
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > on
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > how
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > enable
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task
>> for
>> > > > > > supporting
>> > > > > > >> >> > > GraalVM,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > maybe
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > someone
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with
>> GraalVM
>> > > will
>> > > > > > >> suggest a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > solution
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > or
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proper
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit
>> later.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is
>> > > found,
>> > > > we
>> > > > > > >> could
>> > > > > > >> >> > allow
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > users
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > write
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > own
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I
>> don't
>> > > > think
>> > > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> is
>> > > > > > >> >> a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > good
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > idea
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > expose
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > any
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the
>> public.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24,
>> 2020 at
>> > > > 2:55
>> > > > > AM
>> > > > > > >> >> Denis
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > Magda <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for
>> > the
>> > > > > > update,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the
>> > > > serializers
>> > > > > > >> take
>> > > > > > >> >> into
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > consideration
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > native-image-generation
>> > > > > > >> feature of
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > GraalVM?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current
>> > binary
>> > > > > > >> >> marshaller,
>> > > > > > >> >> > we
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > can't
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > even
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > generate
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using
>> > our
>> > > > thin
>> > > > > > >> client
>> > > > > > >> >> > > APIs.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23,
>> 2020
>> > at
>> > > > > 4:39
>> > > > > > AM
>> > > > > > >> >> > Andrey
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Mashenkov
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to
>> > continue
>> > > > > > >> discussion
>> > > > > > >> >> of
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > IEP-54
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone
>> who
>> > is
>> > > > > > >> interested
>> > > > > > >> >> > had a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > chance
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > get
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not
>> > > hesitate
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> ask
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > questions
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > share
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > your
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a
>> > > > prototype
>> > > > > > of
>> > > > > > >> >> > > serializer
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > [2]
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > data
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I
>> > > compared
>> > > > 2
>> > > > > > >> >> approaches
>> > > > > > >> >> > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > (de)serialize
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java
>> > > > > reflection/unsafe
>> > > > > > >> API
>> > > > > > >> >> and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > similar
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > one
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second
>> one
>> > > > > > generates
>> > > > > > >> >> > > serializer
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > particular
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > user
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library
>> for
>> > > > > > >> compilation.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows
>> > > better
>> > > > > > >> results
>> > > > > > >> >> in
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > benchmarks.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can
>> go
>> > > with
>> > > > it
>> > > > > > as
>> > > > > > >> >> > default
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > serializer
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > have
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation
>> as a
>> > > > > > fallback
>> > > > > > >> if
>> > > > > > >> >> > > someone
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > issues
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a
>> number
>> > of
>> > > > > tasks
>> > > > > > >> >> under
>> > > > > > >> >> > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > umbrella
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ticket
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going
>> to
>> > > > create
>> > > > > > more
>> > > > > > >> >> > tickets
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > manager
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation,
>> but
>> > > > would
>> > > > > > >> like
>> > > > > > >> >> to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > clarify
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > some
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > details.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought
>> > > schemaManager
>> > > > > on
>> > > > > > >> each
>> > > > > > >> >> > node
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > should
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > held:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local
>> mapping
>> > of
>> > > > > > "schema
>> > > > > > >> >> > > version"
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > <-->
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > validated
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > local
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2.
>> Cluster-wide
>> > > > schema
>> > > > > > >> changes
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > history.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client
>> side.
>> > > > > Before
>> > > > > > >> any
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > key-value
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > operation
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a
>> given
>> > > > > > key-value
>> > > > > > >> >> pair.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no
>> > > > > > local-mapping
>> > > > > > >> >> exists
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > for a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > given
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide
>> schema
>> > > > has a
>> > > > > > >> more
>> > > > > > >> >> > recent
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > version
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be
>> validated
>> > > > > against
>> > > > > > >> the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > latest
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > version
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > local
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> updated/actualized.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object
>> > doesn't
>> > > > fit
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > latest
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > depends
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either
>> fail
>> > the
>> > > > > > >> operation
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > ('strict'
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > mode)
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > or
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > new
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a
>> new
>> > > > schema
>> > > > > > >> version
>> > > > > > >> >> > > should
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > be
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > propagated
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server
>> side
>> > we
>> > > > > > usually
>> > > > > > >> >> have
>> > > > > > >> >> > no
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > key-value
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > classes
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change
>> > > > history
>> > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > available
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > tuple
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > has
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible
>> to
>> > > > upgrade
>> > > > > > any
>> > > > > > >> >> > > received
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > tuple
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > last
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could
>> allow
>> > > > nodes
>> > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> send
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > key-value
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > pairs
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't
>> > receive a
>> > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > >> >> update
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > yet)
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > without
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > reverting
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node
>> with
>> > > > newer
>> > > > > > >> >> classes.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan
>> did
>> > > you
>> > > > > > mean
>> > > > > > >> the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > same?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17,
>> > 2020
>> > > at
>> > > > > > 9:21
>> > > > > > >> AM
>> > > > > > >> >> > Ivan
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Pavlukhin
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not
>> > > ignore
>> > > > > > >> history.
>> > > > > > >> >> We
>> > > > > > >> >> > > had
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > thread
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > many
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can
>> > > resume
>> > > > > it.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10
>> 0:08
>> > > > > > GMT+03:00,
>> > > > > > >> >> Denis
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > Magda
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes
>> > sense,
>> > > > > > thanks
>> > > > > > >> for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > explaining.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that
>> we
>> > > need
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > >> have a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > separate
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > discussion
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
>> terms
>> > > > > > >> substitution.
>> > > > > > >> >> > I'll
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > appreciate
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > if
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > you
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing
>> > pointers
>> > > to
>> > > > > any
>> > > > > > >> >> > relevant
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > IEPs
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > reasoning
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep
>> 8,
>> > > 2020
>> > > > > at
>> > > > > > >> 6:01
>> > > > > > >> >> PM
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Valentin
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> [hidden email]>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the
>> > > > wording
>> > > > > in
>> > > > > > >> the
>> > > > > > >> >> IEP
>> > > > > > >> >> > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > little
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > bit
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you
>> > should
>> > > > not
>> > > > > > >> create
>> > > > > > >> >> > > nested
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > POJOs,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > but
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > rather
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO
>> > that
>> > > > is
>> > > > > > >> mapped
>> > > > > > >> >> to
>> > > > > > >> >> > a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > particular
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > In
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are
>> not
>> > > > > > supported.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is
>> this
>> > > > > correct?
>> > > > > > >> >> Please
>> > > > > > >> >> > > let
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > me
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > know
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > if
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I'm
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > missing
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the
>> > > "cache"
>> > > > > > >> term, I
>> > > > > > >> >> > agree
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > that
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can
>> > > > replace
>> > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> with.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > "Table"
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > tightly
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is
>> > optional
>> > > in
>> > > > > our
>> > > > > > >> >> case.
>> > > > > > >> >> > Do
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > you
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > want
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > create a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue,
>> Sep 8,
>> > > > 2020
>> > > > > at
>> > > > > > >> >> 4:37 PM
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > Denis
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Magda <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've
>> checked
>> > > the
>> > > > > IEP
>> > > > > > >> again
>> > > > > > >> >> > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > have a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > few
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > questions.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary
>> > > nested
>> > > > > > >> objects
>> > > > > > >> >> and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > collections
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > are
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > not
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested
>> > POJOs
>> > > > > should
>> > > > > > >> >> either
>> > > > > > >> >> > be
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > inlined
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > into
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you
>> > > > provide a
>> > > > > > DDL
>> > > > > > >> >> code
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > snippet
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > showing
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > how
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed
>> to
>> > > work?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we
>> keep
>> > > > using
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> terms
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > "cache"
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > "table"
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right
>> > time
>> > > to
>> > > > > > >> discuss
>> > > > > > >> >> an
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > alternate
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > name
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> Personally,
>> > the
>> > > > > > "table"
>> > > > > > >> >> > should
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > stay
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> considering
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL
>> is
>> > one
>> > > > of
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > primary
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > APIs
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > in
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > out-of-the-box.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon,
>> Sep
>> > 7,
>> > > > 2020
>> > > > > > at
>> > > > > > >> >> 12:26
>> > > > > > >> >> > PM
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >> >> > [hidden email]>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see
>> your
>> > > > > point. I
>> > > > > > >> >> agree
>> > > > > > >> >> > > that
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > with
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > automatic
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> schema-last
>> > > > > > >> territory.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> Actually,
>> > if
>> > > we
>> > > > > > >> support
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > automatic
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > evolution,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> creating a
>> > > > cache
>> > > > > > >> without
>> > > > > > >> >> > > schema
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > inferring
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other
>> > words,
>> > > we
>> > > > > can
>> > > > > > >> have
>> > > > > > >> >> > both
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey,
>> > what
>> > > do
>> > > > > you
>> > > > > > >> >> think?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon,
>> Sep
>> > > 7,
>> > > > > 2020
>> > > > > > >> at
>> > > > > > >> >> 5:59
>> > > > > > >> >> > > AM
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Alexey
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > >> >> [hidden email]
>> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank
>> > you,
>> > > I
>> > > > > got
>> > > > > > >> your
>> > > > > > >> >> > > concern
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > now.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > As
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> > > terminology,
>> > > > I
>> > > > > am
>> > > > > > >> >> > > absolutely
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > fine
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > changing
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the
>> > > approach
>> > > > > > best.
>> > > > > > >> >> > Dynamic
>> > > > > > >> >> > > or
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > evolving
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> > > corresponding
>> > > > > > >> changes
>> > > > > > >> >> to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > IEP
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > once
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > settle
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7
>> > сент.
>> > > > > 2020
>> > > > > > >> г. в
>> > > > > > >> >> > > 11:33,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Ivan
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> [hidden email]
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi
>> Val,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> Thank
>> > you
>> > > > for
>> > > > > > >> your
>> > > > > > >> >> > > answer!
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My
>> > > > > > understanding
>> > > > > > >> is
>> > > > > > >> >> a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > little
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > bit
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > different.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > definitely
>> > > > > > >> should be
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > possible.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > But
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > see
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > main
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> schema
>> > is
>> > > > > > >> updated".
>> > > > > > >> >> I
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > treat a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > common
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > SQL
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
>> > data
>> > > > > > >> >> manipulation
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > operations
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > are
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > clearly
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > interesting
>> > > > > > >> >> > capabilities,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > e.g.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > preventing
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > mistaken
>> > > > data
>> > > > > > >> >> > operations,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > restricting
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > user
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> schema.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
>> > > > > Schema-first
>> > > > > > >> means
>> > > > > > >> >> > that
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > exists
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
>> > > > compliant
>> > > > > > with
>> > > > > > >> >> it -
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > that's
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > exactly
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > what
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A
>> > > > schema-last
>> > > > > > >> >> approach
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > mentioned
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > also
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> exists,
>> > > but
>> > > > > it
>> > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > inferred
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > from
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > data.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > proposing
>> > > > > > >> approach?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And
>> I
>> > > would
>> > > > > > like
>> > > > > > >> to
>> > > > > > >> >> > say,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > that
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > my
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > main
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > concern
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> about
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > terminology.
>> > > > > > And
>> > > > > > >> I
>> > > > > > >> >> > > suppose
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > if
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > confuses
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > me
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > confused
>> > > as
>> > > > > > >> well. My
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > feeling
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > closer
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > evolving
>> > > > > > schema".
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1]
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > 2020-09-07
>> > > > > 0:47
>> > > > > > >> >> > > GMT+03:00,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi
>> > > Ivan,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I
>> > don't
>> > > > see
>> > > > > > an
>> > > > > > >> >> issue
>> > > > > > >> >> > > with
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > that.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
>> > advance
>> > > > and
>> > > > > > all
>> > > > > > >> >> the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > stored
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > data
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > compliant
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is
>> > > > > proposed.
>> > > > > > >> There
>> > > > > > >> >> > are
>> > > > > > >> >> > > no
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > restrictions
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
>> the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> schema.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
>> -Val
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On
>> > Sat,
>> > > > Sep
>> > > > > > 5,
>> > > > > > >> >> 2020
>> > > > > > >> >> > at
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > 9:52
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > PM
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ivan
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > [hidden email]>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > Alexey,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I
>> > am a
>> > > > > > little
>> > > > > > >> bit
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > confused
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> to a
>> > > > > survey
>> > > > > > >> [1]
>> > > > > > >> >> (see
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > part
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > X
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Semi
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Structured
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > really
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a
>> > > > "dynamic
>> > > > > > >> >> schema"
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > approach
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > as a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > kind
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> [1]
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > 2020-09-02
>> > > > > > >> 1:53
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > GMT+03:00,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Denis
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > > > However,
>> > > > > > >> could
>> > > > > > >> >> > you
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > please
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > ORM?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > Is
>> > > > > there
>> > > > > > a
>> > > > > > >> use
>> > > > > > >> >> > case
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > (I
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> haven't
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > seen
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > one
>> > > > so
>> > > > > > >> far)?
>> > > > > > >> >> If
>> > > > > > >> >> > so,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > what
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > support
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > this?
>> > > > > In
>> > > > > > my
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > have.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > Am
>> > > I
>> > > > > > >> missing
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > something?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > Good
>> > > > > > point,
>> > > > > > >> >> yes,
>> > > > > > >> >> > if
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > all
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > ORM
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > internally,
>> > > > > > >> >> then
>> > > > > > >> >> > > they
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > can
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > easily
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > translate
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> INSERT/UPDATE
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > statement
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > that
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > lists
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > all
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > our
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > Spring
>> > > > > > Data
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > integration
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > already
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > based
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > APIs
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > needs
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > to
>> > > be
>> > > > > > >> improved
>> > > > > > >> >> > once
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > schema-first
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > solve
>> > > > a
>> > > > > > ton
>> > > > > > >> of
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > usability
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > issues.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > I
>> > > > would
>> > > > > > >> revise
>> > > > > > >> >> the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Hibernate
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > integration
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> dev
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > phase.
>> > > > > > Can't
>> > > > > > >> >> say
>> > > > > > >> >> > if
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > it's
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > used
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > lot
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > but
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > getting
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > traction
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > sure.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > @Michael
>> > > > > > >> >> Pollind,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > I'll
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > loop
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > you
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > long
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > Ignite
>> > > > > > >> support
>> > > > > > >> >> for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Micornaut
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Data
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > came
>> > > > > > across
>> > > > > > >> >> some
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > challenges.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Just
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > watch
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > That's
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > coming
>> > > > > in
>> > > > > > >> >> Ignite
>> > > > > > >> >> > > 3.0.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > -
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > Denis
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > On
>> > > > Mon,
>> > > > > > Aug
>> > > > > > >> 31,
>> > > > > > >> >> > 2020
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > at
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > 5:11
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > Hi
>> > > > > Denis,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > > > Generally
>> > > > > > >> >> > > speaking, I
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > believe
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> natively
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > > > addresses
>> > > > > > >> the
>> > > > > > >> >> > issue
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > if
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > duplicate
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > fields
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > because
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > > schema
>> > > > > > >> will be
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > created
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > cache,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> happens
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> now.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > > > > Basically,
>> > > > > > >> the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > schema
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > define
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > whether
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > not,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > and
>> > > > > which
>> > > > > > >> >> fields
>> > > > > > >> >> > > are
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > included
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > case
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > would
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > have
>> > > > > must
>> > > > > > >> be
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > compliant
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > with
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > this,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > so
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > with
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > data
>> > > > as
>> > > > > > >> with a
>> > > > > > >> >> > set
>> > > > > > >> >> > > of
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > records,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > rather
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > > > However,
>> > > > > > >> could
>> > > > > > >> >> > you
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > please
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > ORM?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > Is
>> > > > > there
>> > > > > > a
>> > > > > > >> use
>> > > > > > >> >> > case
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > (I
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> haven't
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > seen
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > one
>> > > > so
>> > > > > > >> far)?
>> > > > > > >> >> If
>> > > > > > >> >> > so,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > what
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > support
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > this?
>> > > > > In
>> > > > > > my
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > have.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > Am
>> > > I
>> > > > > > >> missing
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > something?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > -Val
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > On
>> > > > Mon,
>> > > > > > Aug
>> > > > > > >> >> 31,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > 2020
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > at
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > 2:08
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Denis
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > [hidden email]>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > Val,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > I
>> > > > > would
>> > > > > > >> >> propose
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > adding
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > another
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > point
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > list
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > > related
>> > > > > > >> to
>> > > > > > >> >> the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > ORM
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > frameworks
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > such
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > Micronaut
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > many
>> > > > > > >> others.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > > > >> Presently,
>> > > > > > >> >> the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > storage
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > engine
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requires
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > from
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > value
>> > > > > > >> ones
>> > > > > > >> >> that
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > complicate
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > usage
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > > > >> frameworks
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > > > >> (especially
>> > > > > > >> >> if
>> > > > > > >> >> > a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > key
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > object
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > comprises
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > More
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> can
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > be
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > found
>> > > > > > >> here:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > It
>> > > > > will
>> > > > > > >> be
>> > > > > > >> >> nice
>> > > > > > >> >> > > if
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > new
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> with
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > > single
>> > > > > > >> >> entity
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > object
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > when
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > comes
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > split
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > > entity
>> > > > > > >> into
>> > > > > > >> >> a
>> > > > > > >> >> > key
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > value.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Just
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > want
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > 3.0
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > has
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > all
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > essential
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > public
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > APIs
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> > > single-entity
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > based
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > > > approach.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > What
>> > > > > do
>> > > > > > >> you
>> > > > > > >> >> > > think?
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > -
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > Denis
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > On
>> > > > > Fri,
>> > > > > > >> Aug
>> > > > > > >> >> 28,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > 2020
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > at
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > 3:50
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > PM
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> Igniters,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > >
>> > > > One
>> > > > > > of
>> > > > > > >> the
>> > > > > > >> >> > big
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > changes
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proposed
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> so-called
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> "schema-first
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > approach".
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > To
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > add
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > more
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > >
>> > > > > > started
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> writing
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > >
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > IEP
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > >
>> > > > for
>> > > > > > >> this
>> > > > > > >> >> > > change:
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > >
>> > > > > > Please
>> > > > > > >> >> take a
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > look
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > let
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > me
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > know
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> thoughts,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> suggestions,
>> > > > > > >> >> > or
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > objections.
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > >
>> > > > > -Val
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> --
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> Best
>> > > > > > regards,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> Ivan
>> > > > > > Pavlukhin
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best
>> > > > regards,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan
>> > > > > Pavlukhin
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V.
>> Mashenkov
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > --
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > --
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > >> >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> > > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > --
>> > > > > > Best regards,
>> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Best regards,
>> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Best regards,
>> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
>> >
>>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>

--
Best regards,
Andrey V. Mashenkov

[Ilya Kasnacheev]

Hello!

How about:

First, all fields for which we know their specific order and size go, such
as byte, short, int, long, boolean. This means that any short field will
take just 2 bytes with no padding.
Then, all var-len fields go, such as nested object, strings, etc.

After that, we know total object size already, right?
If size <= 256, then all offsets are 1 byte unsigned.
If size < 65k, then all offsets are 2 byte.
Else, all offsets are 4 byte.

We can count offsets starting from the first byle after constant fields
section and offsets section.
For the first varlen field, the offset is always 0, so we may skip this one
and start with offset of the second var field.

For compression it is trickier. I suggest not having any explicit support
for compression right here, so that later on compression may use a
different object layout to be more efficient.

Regards,
--
Ilya Kasnacheev


ср, 19 мая 2021 г. в 16:43, Andrey Mashenkov <[hidden email]>:

> Hi Igniters,
>
> I've create a ticket [1] for large row support.
>
> We use 2-bytes offsets for varlen fields that are supposed to be large
> enough.
> AFAIK, some users use multi-MB values and 64k per Row looks like a strong
> limitation.
>
> So, we have either to increase offset_size up to 4-bytes or use some
> advanced mechanics for compression or adaptive offset_size.
>
> 1. Increasing offset size may add overhead for keys like next:
> class Key {
>    int id;
>    String str; // Some short string code.
> }
>
> 2. Compression will require table to be decompressed on every varlen column
> access, e.g. for comparison purposes while index scan.
> Also, we may need to pre-calculate compressed table size to avoid buffer
> copying (shrinking or extending) during row assembling.
>
> 3. Adaptive offset_size implies row size estimation.
> We already do to reduce the probability of buffer expanding, but we need a
> high margin for this purpose.
> 'String' values size is a hard part as String character may be encoded into
> 1-4 bytes depending on Charset.
>
> Usually, a user don't want to care about Column length limitation and chars
> collation.
> So, we can expect a Java default behavior will be used in most cases:
> 'unlimited' string size with up to 4-bytes characters support.
>
> Possible strategies
> 3.1 Introduce 'Collation' for string and validate all the chars on row
> assembling and rely on the user limited column length.
> Thus, we can use varlen limits (+ collation for strings) to estimate row
> size and pre-calculate offset_size to keep it within the schema.
> 3.2 Introduce more row flags for different offset sizes (byte, short, int)
> and calculate row size right before assembling for choosing appropriate
> offset_size.
> Heuristics for strings using collation is also applicable here and keep
> algorithm complexity independent from the data length, but the schema only.
>
> I like an approach '3.2' because we already estimate row size.
> Any thoughts?
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14743
>
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 7:25 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> [hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Igniters,
> > I've prepared PR [1] with Public Table API for final review.
> >
> > Main points
> > There are 4 projection interfaces over Table for different use-cases
> > (Plain record vs Key-Value and POJO vs Binary object) declaring
> synchronous
> > and asynchronous methods.
> > Async method returns IgniteFuture as there is no consensus on
> IgniteFuture
> > vs JDK CompletableFuture yet.
> > API implementation is incomplete, it just an example of how it could be
> > done and will be implemented in future tasks.
> > Tuple/TupleAssembler renamed to Row/RowAssembler. Now Tuple is just a
> > dictionary representing a subset of columns, while Row is a schema-aware
> > object containing key and value columns respectively to the data layout.
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:26 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I see, thanks.
> >>
> >> Let's discuss the return type - Future is not the one to use.
> >> We should return CompletionStage, CompletableFuture, or introduce our
> own
> >> interface.
> >> We agreed on the last one (custom interface) for thin clients:
> >>
> >>
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/IEP-51-Java-Thin-Client-Async-API-td48900.html
> >>
> >> I believe that for Ignite 3.0 we should have the following:
> >> public interface IgniteFuture<T> extends Future<T>, CompletionStage<T> {
> >>     // No-op.
> >> }
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:16 AM Andrey Mashenkov <
> >> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Pavel,
> >> > There are 2 PR's for the ticket[1] with two different APIs  suggested.
> >> > Please, take a look at PR [2].
> >> >
> >> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14035
> >> > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/69
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:11 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]
> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Andrey, I can't find any async methods,
> >> > > can you please check if the changes are pushed?
> >> > >
> >> > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 10:06 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> >> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Pavel, good point.
> >> > > > Thanks. I've added async methods.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 2:29 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> >> [hidden email]>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Andrey,
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > What about corresponding async APIs, do we add them now or
> later?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 8:11 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> >> > > > > [hidden email]>
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > Hi Igniters.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > I've created a PR for Table access API [1].
> >> > > > > > This is an initial version. So, any suggestions\objections are
> >> > > > welcomed.
> >> > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to write your comments and\or examples
> >> to
> >> > the
> >> > > > PR.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Ignite-api module contains API classes, e.g. TableView classes
> >> as
> >> > > > > > projections for a table for different purposes.
> >> > > > > > Ignite-table contains dummy implementation and Example class
> >> > > explained
> >> > > > > how
> >> > > > > > it is supposed to be used.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Also, I'm still waiting for any feedback for Schema
> >> configuration
> >> > > > public
> >> > > > > > API PR [2].
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/33
> >> > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:05 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> >> > > > > > [hidden email]>
> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > I've updated a PR regarding your feedback [1].
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:58 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> Folks,
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> I updated the IEP to contain the missing pieces; actually,
> >> most
> >> > of
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> questions here were covered by the text. Please let me know
> >> if
> >> > > there
> >> > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> something still missing or unclear.
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> чт, 31 дек. 2020 г. в 12:48, Alexey Goncharuk <
> >> > > > > > [hidden email]
> >> > > > > > >> >:
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> > Mikhail and Igniters,
> >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> > Thanks for your comments. The questions are reasonable,
> >> > though I
> >> > > > > think
> >> > > > > > >> all
> >> > > > > > >> > concerns are addressed by the IEP as Val mentioned. I
> will
> >> > > update
> >> > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> > document according to your questions in the following
> week
> >> or
> >> > > so,
> >> > > > so
> >> > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > >> can
> >> > > > > > >> > have a constructive discussion further.
> >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> > ср, 30 дек. 2020 г. в 11:45, Michael Cherkasov <
> >> > > > > > >> > [hidden email]>:
> >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> Hi Val, Andrey,
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> thank you for clarifying.
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> I still have a few comments.
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> 1. one table == one schema. KV vs SQL:
> >> > > > > > >> >> Looks like all agreed that KV is just a special case of
> a
> >> > > regular
> >> > > > > > table
> >> > > > > > >> >> with (blob,blob) schema.
> >> > > > > > >> >> I worry about the case when the user starts from KV case
> >> and
> >> > > > later
> >> > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > >> >> try
> >> > > > > > >> >> to expand it and try to leverage SQL for the existing KV
> >> > table
> >> > > it
> >> > > > > > >> won't be
> >> > > > > > >> >> able to do so and will require to reload data. which
> isn't
> >> > > > > convenient
> >> > > > > > >> and
> >> > > > > > >> >> sometimes not even possible. Is it possible to extract a
> >> new
> >> > > > field
> >> > > > > > from
> >> > > > > > >> >> (blob, blob) schema and apply index on it?
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> 2. Could you please also list all ways of schema
> >> definition
> >> > in
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> IEP? It
> >> > > > > > >> >> significant change and I bet the main point of this IEP,
> >> > > everyone
> >> > > > > > hates
> >> > > > > > >> >> QueryEntities, they are difficult to manage and in
> >> general,
> >> > > it's
> >> > > > > very
> >> > > > > > >> >> confusing to have a data model(schemas) and node/cluster
> >> > > > > > configuration
> >> > > > > > >> in
> >> > > > > > >> >> one place.
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> So there will be SchemaBuilder and SQL to define
> schemas,
> >> but
> >> > > > > Andrey
> >> > > > > > >> also
> >> > > > > > >> >> mentioned annotations.
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> I personally against configuration via annotations,
> while
> >> > it's
> >> > > > > > >> convenient
> >> > > > > > >> >> for development, it difficult to manage because
> different
> >> > > classes
> >> > > > > can
> >> > > > > > >> be
> >> > > > > > >> >> deployed on different clients/servers nodes and it can
> >> lead
> >> > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> unpredictable results.
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> 3. IEP doesn't mention field type changes, only drop/add
> >> > > fields.
> >> > > > > > Field
> >> > > > > > >> >> type
> >> > > > > > >> >> changes are extremely painful right now(if even
> >> possible), so
> >> > > it
> >> > > > > > would
> >> > > > > > >> be
> >> > > > > > >> >> nice if some scenarios would be supported(like
> >> int8->int16,
> >> > or
> >> > > > > > >> >> int8->String).
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> 4. got it, I thought IEP will have more details about
> the
> >> > > > > > >> implementation.
> >> > > > > > >> >> I've seen Andrey even sent benchmark results for a new
> >> > > > > serialization,
> >> > > > > > >> will
> >> > > > > > >> >> ping him about this.
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> 5. Thanks for the clarification. I had a wrong
> >> understanding
> >> > of
> >> > > > > > strick
> >> > > > > > >> >> mode.
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> вт, 29 дек. 2020 г. в 19:32, Valentin Kulichenko <
> >> > > > > > >> >> [hidden email]>:
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > Hi Mike,
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > Thanks for providing your feedback. Please see my
> >> comments
> >> > > > below.
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > I would also encourage you to go through the IEP-54
> [1]
> >> -
> >> > it
> >> > > > has
> >> > > > > a
> >> > > > > > >> lot
> >> > > > > > >> >> of
> >> > > > > > >> >> > detail on the topic.
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > [1]
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > -Val
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:22 PM Michael Cherkasov <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > Hi all,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > I reviewed the mail thread and proposal page and I
> >> still
> >> > > > don't
> >> > > > > > >> fully
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > understand what is going to be changed, I would
> really
> >> > > > > appreciate
> >> > > > > > >> it
> >> > > > > > >> >> if
> >> > > > > > >> >> > you
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > will answer a few questions:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > 1. Are you going to leave only one schema per cache?
> >> if
> >> > so,
> >> > > > > will
> >> > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > >> >> there
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > an option to have a table with arbitrary
> objects(pure
> >> KV
> >> > > > case)?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > My opinion is that KV case should be natively
> >> supported. I
> >> > > > think
> >> > > > > > this
> >> > > > > > >> >> still
> >> > > > > > >> >> > needs to be thought over, my current view on this is
> >> that
> >> > we
> >> > > > > should
> >> > > > > > >> have
> >> > > > > > >> >> > separate APIs for KV and more generic storages. KV
> >> storage
> >> > > can
> >> > > > be
> >> > > > > > >> >> > implemented as a "table" with two BLOB fields where we
> >> will
> >> > > > store
> >> > > > > > >> >> > serialized key-value pairs. That would imply
> >> > deserialization
> >> > > on
> >> > > > > > read,
> >> > > > > > >> >> but I
> >> > > > > > >> >> > believe this is OK for KV use cases. I'm happy to hear
> >> > other
> >> > > > > ideas
> >> > > > > > >> >> though
> >> > > > > > >> >> > :)
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0 have to
> define
> >> > > schema?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > SchemaBuilder
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > and SQL only? Is there an option to put the schema
> >> > > definition
> >> > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > configuration?(I really don't like this, I would
> >> prefer
> >> > to
> >> > > > have
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > separate scripts to create schemas)
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > There will be no such thing as a static configuration
> in
> >> > the
> >> > > > > first
> >> > > > > > >> >> place.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > Tables and schemas are created in runtime. Even if
> there
> >> > is a
> >> > > > > file
> >> > > > > > >> >> provided
> >> > > > > > >> >> > on node startup, this file is only applied in the
> scope
> >> of
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > >> 'start'
> >> > > > > > >> >> > operation. All configurations will be stored in a meta
> >> > > storage
> >> > > > > > >> >> available to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > all nodes, as opposed to individual files.
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > 3. Is there a way to change field type? if yes, can
> >> it be
> >> > > > done
> >> > > > > in
> >> > > > > > >> >> > runtime?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > Absolutely! IEP-54 has a whole section about schema
> >> > > evolution.
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going to be
> >> re-worked
> >> > > too,
> >> > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> there
> >> > > > > > >> >> any
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > IEP for this?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > BinaryMarshaller as a tool for arbitrary object
> >> > serialization
> >> > > > > will
> >> > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > >> >> gone,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > but we will reuse a lot of its concept to implement an
> >> > > internal
> >> > > > > > tuple
> >> > > > > > >> >> > serialization mechanism. IEP-54 has the description of
> >> the
> >> > > > > proposed
> >> > > > > > >> data
> >> > > > > > >> >> > format.
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > 5. I don't like automatic schema evaluation when a
> new
> >> > > field
> >> > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> added
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > automatically on record put, so is there a way to
> >> > prohibit
> >> > > > this
> >> > > > > > >> >> behavior?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >  I think all schema changes should be done only
> >> > explicitly
> >> > > > > except
> >> > > > > > >> >> initial
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > schema creation.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > The way I see it is that we should have two modes:
> >> > > schema-first
> >> > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > schema-last. Schema-first means exactly what you've
> >> > > described -
> >> > > > > > >> schemas
> >> > > > > > >> >> are
> >> > > > > > >> >> > defined and updated explicitly by the user. In the
> >> > > schema-last
> >> > > > > > mode,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > the user does not deal with schemas, as they are
> >> inferred
> >> > > from
> >> > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> data
> >> > > > > > >> >> > inserted into tables. We should definitely not mix
> these
> >> > > modes
> >> > > > -
> >> > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> has
> >> > > > > > >> >> to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > be one or another. And it probably makes sense to
> >> discuss
> >> > > which
> >> > > > > > mode
> >> > > > > > >> >> should
> >> > > > > > >> >> > be the default one.
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > Thanks,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > Mike.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey Mashenkov <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > [hidden email]
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Hi, Igniters.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > We all know that the current QueryEntity API is
> not
> >> > > > > convenient
> >> > > > > > >> and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > needs
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > be reworked.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema
> >> configuration
> >> > > > public
> >> > > > > > API
> >> > > > > > >> >> for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Ignite 3.0.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > New schema configuration uses Builder pattern,
> which
> >> > > looks
> >> > > > > more
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > comfortable
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > to use.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package with
> the
> >> API
> >> > > > > itself,
> >> > > > > > >> and
> >> > > > > > >> >> a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > draft
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and a test that demonstrates how the API could be
> >> used.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Please note:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with static
> >> > > factory
> >> > > > > > >> methods.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * The implementation is decoupled and can be
> easily
> >> > > > extracted
> >> > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > separate
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > module if we decide to do so.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are missed,
> >> they
> >> > > will
> >> > > > > be
> >> > > > > > >> added
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > lately
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > in separate tickes.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Index configuration extends marker interface
> that
> >> > makes
> >> > > > > > >> possible
> >> > > > > > >> >> to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Hopfully, we could add a persistent geo-indices
> >> support
> >> > > in
> >> > > > > > >> future.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Supposedly, current table schema can be changed
> >> via
> >> > > > > > >> builder-like
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See
> >> > > > > > >> >> 'TableModificationBuilder'
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > details.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have
> 'toBuilder()'
> >> > > > > converter
> >> > > > > > >> for
> >> > > > > > >> >> that
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > purpose as it is a Schema Manager responsibility
> to
> >> > > create
> >> > > > > > >> mutator
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > objects
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > from the current schema,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > but implementing the Schema manager is out of
> scope
> >> and
> >> > > > will
> >> > > > > be
> >> > > > > > >> >> > designed
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > within the next task.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Interfaces implementations are out of scope. I
> did
> >> > not
> >> > > > > intend
> >> > > > > > >> to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > merge
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > them right now, but for test/demostration
> purposes.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > It is NOT the final version and some may be
> changed
> >> > > before
> >> > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> first
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > release of course.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed with
> >> this
> >> > > > > approach
> >> > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > >> >> some
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > issues should be resolved at first.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Any thoughts or objections?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Are interfaces good enough to be merged within the
> >> > > current
> >> > > > > > >> ticket?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <
> >> > > > > > >> [hidden email]>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 2. It requires adding new types to the internal
> >> > > > > > representation,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > protocol,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > e.t.c.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 3. internal representation should be the same as
> >> we
> >> > > keep
> >> > > > > sign
> >> > > > > > >> >> types.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > So
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > will not requires more memory
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such types
> >> for
> >> > > > > platforms
> >> > > > > > >> >> which
> >> > > > > > >> >> > not
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > support unsigned types. For example, a user
> could
> >> > > derive
> >> > > > -6
> >> > > > > > >> value
> >> > > > > > >> >> in
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits
> perspective
> >> > will
> >> > > > be
> >> > > > > > >> >> right). I
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > think
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such cases,
> >> > > > especially
> >> > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> will be
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > bad
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for unsigned long when we require returns
> >> BigInteger
> >> > > > type.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix for
> >> new
> >> > > types
> >> > > > > > like
> >> > > > > > >> a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > '250u' -
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive
> >> comparison
> >> > > > logic
> >> > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > indexes
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for
> >> expressions.
> >> > I
> >> > > > > think
> >> > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> not
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > possible for the current H2 engine and probably
> >> > > possible
> >> > > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> the
> >> > > > > > >> >> new
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from anybody
> >> who
> >> > > > > involved
> >> > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > >> >> this
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > part
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > WDYT?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey Goncharuk <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > [hidden email]
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0:
> >> once
> >> > we
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> actual
> >> > > > > > >> >> > type
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > information, we can make proper runtime
> >> adjustments
> >> > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> conversions
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will be
> >> just a
> >> > > bit
> >> > > > > more
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > expensive.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <
> >> > > > > > >> >> [hidden email]
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons
> >> and so
> >> > > on
> >> > > > > are
> >> > > > > > >> >> broken
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned
> >> this
> >> > > > > > somewhere
> >> > > > > > >> >> > above.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document that
> >> SQL is
> >> > > not
> >> > > > > > >> >> supported
> >> > > > > > >> >> > on
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > those
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > types,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > end of story.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey
> >> Goncharuk
> >> > <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable
> >> request. I
> >> > > > > thought
> >> > > > > > >> about
> >> > > > > > >> >> > this
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > when
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > I
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add
> >> > these
> >> > > > > types
> >> > > > > > >> right
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > away.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the
> >> > > > beginning
> >> > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > >> >> .NET
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > C++
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > :)
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually works
> as
> >> > > > > expected,
> >> > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> needs
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > some
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns are
> >> > false):
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - It's true that equality check works
> >> > > properly,
> >> > > > > but
> >> > > > > > >> for
> >> > > > > > >> >> SQL
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > range
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    queries it will break unless some
> special
> >> > care
> >> > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> taken
> >> > > > > > >> >> on
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > side:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will
> >> be
> >> > > > > converted
> >> > > > > > >> to
> >> > > > > > >> >> -1,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > which
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we don't
> have
> >> > > > unsigned
> >> > > > > > >> types
> >> > > > > > >> >> > now,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > I
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > doubt
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    works.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - There is an obvious cross-platform
> data
> >> > loss
> >> > > > > when
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > "intuitive"
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > type
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8
> >> corresponds to
> >> > > > byte
> >> > > > > > >> type in
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > .NET,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > but
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have to
> >> use
> >> > > short
> >> > > > > > type
> >> > > > > > >> in
> >> > > > > > >> >> > Java,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    will also need to take care of the
> range
> >> > check
> >> > > > > > during
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > serialization).
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > I
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    think we can even allow to try to
> >> > deserialize
> >> > > a
> >> > > > > > value
> >> > > > > > >> >> into
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > arbitrary
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > type,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    but throw an exception if the range is
> >> out
> >> > of
> >> > > > > > bounds.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once
> >> all
> >> > the
> >> > > > > > details
> >> > > > > > >> >> are
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > settled
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > here?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey
> >> Mashenkov
> >> > <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't
> >> be
> >> > > > treated
> >> > > > > > >> >> correctly
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > now
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I think we could make "true" support for
> >> > > unsigned
> >> > > > > > >> types,
> >> > > > > > >> >> but
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > they
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map
> >> uint64
> >> > to
> >> > > > > Java
> >> > > > > > >> long
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > primitive,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > but
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > BigInteger only.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64 to
> >> Java
> >> > > > long,
> >> > > > > > but
> >> > > > > > >> >> treat
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > negative
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > values in a different way to preserve
> >> correct
> >> > > > > > ordering.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > These limitations will affect only mixed
> >> > > > > environments
> >> > > > > > >> when
> >> > > > > > >> >> > .Net
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Java
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > used to access the data.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Will this solution address your issues?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel
> >> > Tupitsyn
> >> > > <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > [hidden email]
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since
> the
> >> > > > > beginning
> >> > > > > > >> with
> >> > > > > > >> >> > .NET
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > C++
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > :)
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as
> cache
> >> > keys
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> values,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > as
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > fields
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > properties,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y
> >> > > clauses)
> >> > > > -
> >> > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> works
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > transparently
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the users.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats
> those
> >> > > values
> >> > > > > as
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > corresponding
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > signed
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > types.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in
> some
> >> > cases
> >> > > > > only
> >> > > > > > >> >> because
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > there
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > are
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > no
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very
> simple
> >> > > change
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > protocol
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > -
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > add
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > type
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as
> >> signed
> >> > > > > > >> >> counterparts.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey
> >> > > > Mashenkov
> >> > > > > <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java
> (bitwise
> >> > > > > > >> representation
> >> > > > > > >> >> is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > same)
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a
> >> > uByte
> >> > > > > field
> >> > > > > > >> and
> >> > > > > > >> >> map
> >> > > > > > >> >> > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > 'uint8'
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > column.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to
> "250"
> >> and
> >> > > put
> >> > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> object
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > into a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > table,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a
> single
> >> > byte
> >> > > > > > 'int8'
> >> > > > > > >> >> > column.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it
> >> to
> >> > > > > directly
> >> > > > > > >> the
> >> > > > > > >> >> Java
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > object
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > field
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8
> >> type
> >> > to
> >> > > > > Java
> >> > > > > > >> >> 'short'
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > type
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > because the one expected to see
> "250"
> >> as
> >> > a
> >> > > > > value
> >> > > > > > >> which
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > doesn't
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > fit
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > signed type.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a
> >> BigInteger
> >> > > > field
> >> > > > > in
> >> > > > > > >> >> Java.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat column
> >> value
> >> > > as
> >> > > > > Java
> >> > > > > > >> >> 'byte'
> >> > > > > > >> >> > as
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > is,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > because
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a
> negative
> >> > > value,
> >> > > > so
> >> > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> should
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > be
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > cast
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > short
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger
> for
> >> > > > uint64)
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will
> require
> >> a
> >> > > > > different
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > comparator.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM
> Pavel
> >> > > > Tupitsyn
> >> > > > > <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a
> >> good
> >> > > > idea.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the
> >> simple
> >> > > > > > approach
> >> > > > > > >> I
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > described?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM
> >> Andrey
> >> > > > > > Mashenkov
> >> > > > > > >> <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing
> range
> >> > for
> >> > > > > > unsigned
> >> > > > > > >> >> types
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > then
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > we
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > could
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > add a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on
> >> > schema
> >> > > > > level
> >> > > > > > >> >> (like
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > nullability
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > flag)
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types
> in
> >> > > > storage.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate
> >> storage
> >> > > > > > >> type-system
> >> > > > > > >> >> and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > binary
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > protocol
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of
> type
> >> > will
> >> > > > > match
> >> > > > > > 1
> >> > > > > > >> to
> >> > > > > > >> >> 1
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > with
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > storage
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (native)
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either
> have
> >> a
> >> > > > > separate
> >> > > > > > >> type
> >> > > > > > >> >> id
> >> > > > > > >> >> > or
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > treat
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > serialized
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed
> >> or
> >> > > > > unsigned
> >> > > > > > >> >> flag).
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever
> >> foresee
> >> > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> consequences
> >> > > > > > >> >> > of
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > using
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > types.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned
> >> types
> >> > > > > > perfectly
> >> > > > > > >> >> works
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > with
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > some
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > database,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite
> >> successor
> >> > > > > > confession
> >> > > > > > >> >> with
> >> > > > > > >> >> > our
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > "native"
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he can
> >> use
> >> > the
> >> > > > > power
> >> > > > > > >> of
> >> > > > > > >> >> > Ignite
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Compute
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either
> >> fail to
> >> > > use
> >> > > > > his
> >> > > > > > >> >> > unsigned
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > data
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Java
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > due
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due to
> >> > natural
> >> > > > Java
> >> > > > > > >> type
> >> > > > > > >> >> > system
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > limitations
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > e.g.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively
> supported
> >> > types
> >> > > > > with
> >> > > > > > >> >> possible
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > value
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > ranges
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is what
> >> > trade-off
> >> > > > we
> >> > > > > > >> found
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > acceptable:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > narrowing
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use types
> >> of
> >> > > wider
> >> > > > > > >> range on
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > systems
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > like
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Java.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM
> >> Igor
> >> > > > > Sapego <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so
> >> hard
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > > >> implement
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > comparison
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does
> not
> >> > seem
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > be a
> >> > > > > > >> >> big
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > issue
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > from
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > my
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned
> >> types
> >> > > from
> >> > > > > > Java
> >> > > > > > >> - I
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > think,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > if
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > user
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > uses
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to
> >> > interact
> >> > > > with
> >> > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> from
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > he
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > knows
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > what
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > he
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from
> >> > > platforms
> >> > > > > > where
> >> > > > > > >> >> they
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > have
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > native
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > support
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > widely
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET,
> where
> >> > > users
> >> > > > > > >> currently
> >> > > > > > >> >> > have
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > make a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > manual
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > casting
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using
> unsigned
> >> > > types
> >> > > > > when
> >> > > > > > >> they
> >> > > > > > >> >> > use
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Ignite.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06
> PM
> >> > Pavel
> >> > > > > > >> Tupitsyn <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for
> >> those
> >> > > > types
> >> > > > > > >> >> > (basically,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > just
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > add
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > more
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in
> Java
> >> > > > (bitwise
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > representation
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > same)
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have
> >> unsigned
> >> > > > > integers,
> >> > > > > > >> so
> >> > > > > > >> >> we
> >> > > > > > >> >> > can
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > simply
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > say
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative
> >> > comparison
> >> > > is
> >> > > > > not
> >> > > > > > >> >> > supported
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > in
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > SQL
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (equality
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40
> >> PM
> >> > > > Andrey
> >> > > > > > >> >> Mashenkov
> >> > > > > > >> >> > <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have
> >> i8 or
> >> > > > int8
> >> > > > > > >> >> instead of
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Integer.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't
> >> address
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > issue.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types
> >> should
> >> > be
> >> > > > > > portable
> >> > > > > > >> >> > across
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > different
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > systems
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type
> >> support.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is
> that
> >> > > > unsigned
> >> > > > > > >> types
> >> > > > > > >> >> > cover
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > different
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > ranges.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to
> >> > > introduce a
> >> > > > > > >> uLong.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big
> >> deal
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > add
> >> > > > > > >> uLong
> >> > > > > > >> >> > type
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > support
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > at
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > storage
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes
> and
> >> > then
> >> > > > use
> >> > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> in
> >> > > > > > >> >> e.g.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > .Net
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > only.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support
> it
> >> in
> >> > > e.g.
> >> > > > > > Java?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long
> >> range
> >> > is
> >> > > > > about
> >> > > > > > >> >> (2^-63
> >> > > > > > >> >> > ..
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 2^63)
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > uLong
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > range
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to
> >> > > restrict
> >> > > > > > range
> >> > > > > > >> to
> >> > > > > > >> >> (0
> >> > > > > > >> >> > ..
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > 2^63).
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > This
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion,
> but
> >> > > > doesn't
> >> > > > > > look
> >> > > > > > >> >> like
> >> > > > > > >> >> > a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 'real'
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uLong
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse
> >> when
> >> > the
> >> > > > > user
> >> > > > > > >> will
> >> > > > > > >> >> use
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > uByte,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > limitation
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally
> unusable.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to
> map
> >> > > > unsigned
> >> > > > > > >> types
> >> > > > > > >> >> to a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > type
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > of
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > wider
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative
> >> > values.
> >> > > > > E.g.
> >> > > > > > >> >> uLong to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > BigInteger.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive
> >> Java
> >> > > > type
> >> > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> >> Long
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > here.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > However,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > still
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong
> in 8
> >> > > bytes,
> >> > > > > but
> >> > > > > > >> >> have a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > special
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > comparator
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid
> >> > unwanted
> >> > > > > > >> >> > deserialization.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
> >> 2:04 PM
> >> > > > Pavel
> >> > > > > > >> >> Tupitsyn
> >> > > > > > >> >> > <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of
> >> > "long,
> >> > > > > short,
> >> > > > > > >> >> byte"
> >> > > > > > >> >> > in
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > protocol
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style,
> >> which
> >> > is
> >> > > > > > concise
> >> > > > > > >> >> and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > unambiguous:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
> >> 1:58
> >> > PM
> >> > > > > Igor
> >> > > > > > >> >> Sapego <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support
> that.
> >> > Also,
> >> > > > if
> >> > > > > we
> >> > > > > > >> are
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > aiming
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger
> >> > > platform-independance,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may
> >> want
> >> > to
> >> > > > > > support
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > bit-notation
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (int32,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a
> >> different
> >> > > > type
> >> > > > > on
> >> > > > > > >> >> > different
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > platforms
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often
> when
> >> > > using
> >> > > > > ODBC
> >> > > > > > >> for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > example).
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020
> at
> >> > 1:34
> >> > > PM
> >> > > > > > Pavel
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > Tupitsyn
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should
> >> support
> >> > > > > > unsigned
> >> > > > > > >> >> data
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > types:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt,
> >> > uLong
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have
> >> them,
> >> > > but
> >> > > > > many
> >> > > > > > >> >> other
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > languages
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > do,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing
> >> > number
> >> > > > of
> >> > > > > > thin
> >> > > > > > >> >> > clients
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > this
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > important.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in
> >> current
> >> > > > > > Ignite.NET
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > implementation
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > store
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed
> internally,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge
> >> pain
> >> > > when
> >> > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> comes
> >> > > > > > >> >> to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > metadata,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > binary
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to
> >> > deserialize
> >> > > > int
> >> > > > > as
> >> > > > > > >> uint
> >> > > > > > >> >> > when
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > you
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > have
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > class,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> BinaryObject.GetField)
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020
> >> at
> >> > > 12:28
> >> > > > > PM
> >> > > > > > >> >> Andrey
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Mashenkov <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > [hidden email]
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both
> >> > > > serializers
> >> > > > > > use
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > reflection
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will
> >> allow
> >> > > > users
> >> > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > configure
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > static
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > along
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we
> >> still
> >> > > need
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> validate
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > user
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > classes
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > client
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema
> in
> >> > the
> >> > > > grid
> >> > > > > > >> and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > reflection
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > only
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few
> >> > > articles
> >> > > > > on
> >> > > > > > >> the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > internet
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > on
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > how
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > enable
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task
> >> for
> >> > > > > > supporting
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > GraalVM,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > maybe
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > someone
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with
> >> GraalVM
> >> > > will
> >> > > > > > >> suggest a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > solution
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proper
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit
> >> later.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround
> is
> >> > > found,
> >> > > > we
> >> > > > > > >> could
> >> > > > > > >> >> > allow
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > users
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > write
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > own
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I
> >> don't
> >> > > > think
> >> > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> is
> >> > > > > > >> >> a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > good
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > idea
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > expose
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > any
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the
> >> public.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24,
> >> 2020 at
> >> > > > 2:55
> >> > > > > AM
> >> > > > > > >> >> Denis
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Magda <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks
> for
> >> > the
> >> > > > > > update,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the
> >> > > > serializers
> >> > > > > > >> take
> >> > > > > > >> >> into
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > consideration
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > native-image-generation
> >> > > > > > >> feature of
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > GraalVM?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current
> >> > binary
> >> > > > > > >> >> marshaller,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > we
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > can't
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > even
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > generate
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code
> using
> >> > our
> >> > > > thin
> >> > > > > > >> client
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > APIs.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23,
> >> 2020
> >> > at
> >> > > > > 4:39
> >> > > > > > AM
> >> > > > > > >> >> > Andrey
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Mashenkov
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > [hidden email]
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to
> >> > continue
> >> > > > > > >> discussion
> >> > > > > > >> >> of
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > IEP-54
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone
> >> who
> >> > is
> >> > > > > > >> interested
> >> > > > > > >> >> > had a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > chance
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > get
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1].
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not
> >> > > hesitate
> >> > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> ask
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > questions
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > share
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > your
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared
> a
> >> > > > prototype
> >> > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > serializer
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > [2]
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > data
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the
> proposal.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I
> >> > > compared
> >> > > > 2
> >> > > > > > >> >> approaches
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > (de)serialize
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java
> >> > > > > reflection/unsafe
> >> > > > > > >> API
> >> > > > > > >> >> and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > similar
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > one
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second
> >> one
> >> > > > > > generates
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > serializer
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > particular
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > user
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library
> >> for
> >> > > > > > >> compilation.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one
> shows
> >> > > better
> >> > > > > > >> results
> >> > > > > > >> >> in
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > benchmarks.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can
> >> go
> >> > > with
> >> > > > it
> >> > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > >> >> > default
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > serializer
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation
> >> as a
> >> > > > > > fallback
> >> > > > > > >> if
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > someone
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > issues
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a
> >> number
> >> > of
> >> > > > > tasks
> >> > > > > > >> >> under
> >> > > > > > >> >> > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > umbrella
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ticket
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going
> >> to
> >> > > > create
> >> > > > > > more
> >> > > > > > >> >> > tickets
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > manager
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> implementation,
> >> but
> >> > > > would
> >> > > > > > >> like
> >> > > > > > >> >> to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > clarify
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > some
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > details.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought
> >> > > schemaManager
> >> > > > > on
> >> > > > > > >> each
> >> > > > > > >> >> > node
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > should
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > held:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local
> >> mapping
> >> > of
> >> > > > > > "schema
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > version"
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > <-->
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > validated
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > local
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2.
> >> Cluster-wide
> >> > > > schema
> >> > > > > > >> changes
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > history.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client
> >> side.
> >> > > > > Before
> >> > > > > > >> any
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > key-value
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > operation
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a
> >> given
> >> > > > > > key-value
> >> > > > > > >> >> pair.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no
> >> > > > > > local-mapping
> >> > > > > > >> >> exists
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > given
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide
> >> schema
> >> > > > has a
> >> > > > > > >> more
> >> > > > > > >> >> > recent
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > version
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be
> >> validated
> >> > > > > against
> >> > > > > > >> the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > latest
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > version
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > local
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> updated/actualized.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object
> >> > doesn't
> >> > > > fit
> >> > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > latest
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > depends
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either
> >> fail
> >> > the
> >> > > > > > >> operation
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > ('strict'
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > mode)
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > new
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a
> >> new
> >> > > > schema
> >> > > > > > >> version
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > should
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > be
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > propagated
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server
> >> side
> >> > we
> >> > > > > > usually
> >> > > > > > >> >> have
> >> > > > > > >> >> > no
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > key-value
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > classes
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema
> change
> >> > > > history
> >> > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > available
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > tuple
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > has
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible
> >> to
> >> > > > upgrade
> >> > > > > > any
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > received
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > tuple
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > last
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could
> >> allow
> >> > > > nodes
> >> > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> send
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > key-value
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > pairs
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't
> >> > receive a
> >> > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > >> >> update
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > yet)
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > without
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > reverting
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node
> >> with
> >> > > > newer
> >> > > > > > >> >> classes.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val,
> Ivan
> >> did
> >> > > you
> >> > > > > > mean
> >> > > > > > >> the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > same?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep
> 17,
> >> > 2020
> >> > > at
> >> > > > > > 9:21
> >> > > > > > >> AM
> >> > > > > > >> >> > Ivan
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Pavlukhin
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do
> not
> >> > > ignore
> >> > > > > > >> history.
> >> > > > > > >> >> We
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > had
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > thread
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > many
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We
> can
> >> > > resume
> >> > > > > it.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10
> >> 0:08
> >> > > > > > GMT+03:00,
> >> > > > > > >> >> Denis
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Magda
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes
> >> > sense,
> >> > > > > > thanks
> >> > > > > > >> for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > explaining.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that
> >> we
> >> > > need
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> have a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > separate
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > discussion
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> >> terms
> >> > > > > > >> substitution.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > I'll
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > appreciate
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > if
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > you
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing
> >> > pointers
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > any
> >> > > > > > >> >> > relevant
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > IEPs
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > reasoning
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue,
> Sep
> >> 8,
> >> > > 2020
> >> > > > > at
> >> > > > > > >> 6:01
> >> > > > > > >> >> PM
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Valentin
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> [hidden email]>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess
> the
> >> > > > wording
> >> > > > > in
> >> > > > > > >> the
> >> > > > > > >> >> IEP
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > little
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > bit
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you
> >> > should
> >> > > > not
> >> > > > > > >> create
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > nested
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > POJOs,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > but
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > rather
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single
> POJO
> >> > that
> >> > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> mapped
> >> > > > > > >> >> to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > particular
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are
> >> not
> >> > > > > > supported.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is
> >> this
> >> > > > > correct?
> >> > > > > > >> >> Please
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > let
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > me
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > know
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > if
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I'm
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > missing
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for
> the
> >> > > "cache"
> >> > > > > > >> term, I
> >> > > > > > >> >> > agree
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > that
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we
> can
> >> > > > replace
> >> > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> with.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > "Table"
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > tightly
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is
> >> > optional
> >> > > in
> >> > > > > our
> >> > > > > > >> >> case.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > Do
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > you
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > want
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > create a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about
> this?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue,
> >> Sep 8,
> >> > > > 2020
> >> > > > > at
> >> > > > > > >> >> 4:37 PM
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Denis
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Magda <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've
> >> checked
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > IEP
> >> > > > > > >> again
> >> > > > > > >> >> > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > have a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > few
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > questions.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> Arbitrary
> >> > > nested
> >> > > > > > >> objects
> >> > > > > > >> >> and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > collections
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > are
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > not
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested
> >> > POJOs
> >> > > > > should
> >> > > > > > >> >> either
> >> > > > > > >> >> > be
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > inlined
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > into
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could
> you
> >> > > > provide a
> >> > > > > > DDL
> >> > > > > > >> >> code
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > snippet
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > showing
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > how
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed
> >> to
> >> > > work?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we
> >> keep
> >> > > > using
> >> > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> terms
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > "cache"
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> right
> >> > time
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > > >> discuss
> >> > > > > > >> >> an
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > alternate
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > name
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> Personally,
> >> > the
> >> > > > > > "table"
> >> > > > > > >> >> > should
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > stay
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> considering
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL
> >> is
> >> > one
> >> > > > of
> >> > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > primary
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > APIs
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > out-of-the-box.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon,
> >> Sep
> >> > 7,
> >> > > > 2020
> >> > > > > > at
> >> > > > > > >> >> 12:26
> >> > > > > > >> >> > PM
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > [hidden email]>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see
> >> your
> >> > > > > point. I
> >> > > > > > >> >> agree
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > that
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > with
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > automatic
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> schema-last
> >> > > > > > >> territory.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> Actually,
> >> > if
> >> > > we
> >> > > > > > >> support
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > automatic
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > evolution,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> creating a
> >> > > > cache
> >> > > > > > >> without
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > schema
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > inferring
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> insert.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other
> >> > words,
> >> > > we
> >> > > > > can
> >> > > > > > >> have
> >> > > > > > >> >> > both
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> Alexey,
> >> > what
> >> > > do
> >> > > > > you
> >> > > > > > >> >> think?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On
> Mon,
> >> Sep
> >> > > 7,
> >> > > > > 2020
> >> > > > > > >> at
> >> > > > > > >> >> 5:59
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > AM
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Alexey
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> [hidden email]
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> Ivan,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> Thank
> >> > you,
> >> > > I
> >> > > > > got
> >> > > > > > >> your
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > concern
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > now.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > As
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> > > terminology,
> >> > > > I
> >> > > > > am
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > absolutely
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > fine
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the
> >> > > approach
> >> > > > > > best.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > Dynamic
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > or
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > evolving
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> > > corresponding
> >> > > > > > >> changes
> >> > > > > > >> >> to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > IEP
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > once
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > settle
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн,
> 7
> >> > сент.
> >> > > > > 2020
> >> > > > > > >> г. в
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > 11:33,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Ivan
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> [hidden email]
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi
> >> Val,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> Thank
> >> > you
> >> > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> your
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > answer!
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My
> >> > > > > > understanding
> >> > > > > > >> is
> >> > > > > > >> >> a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > little
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > bit
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > different.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > definitely
> >> > > > > > >> should be
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > possible.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > But
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > see
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > main
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> schema
> >> > is
> >> > > > > > >> updated".
> >> > > > > > >> >> I
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > treat a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > common
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > SQL
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> and
> >> > data
> >> > > > > > >> >> manipulation
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > operations
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > are
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > clearly
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > interesting
> >> > > > > > >> >> > capabilities,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > e.g.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > preventing
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > mistaken
> >> > > > data
> >> > > > > > >> >> > operations,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > restricting
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > user
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> schema.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> >> > > > > Schema-first
> >> > > > > > >> means
> >> > > > > > >> >> > that
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > exists
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> >> > > > compliant
> >> > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > >> >> it -
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > that's
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > exactly
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > what
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A
> >> > > > schema-last
> >> > > > > > >> >> approach
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > mentioned
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > also
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> exists,
> >> > > but
> >> > > > > it
> >> > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > inferred
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > from
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > data.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > proposing
> >> > > > > > >> approach?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> And
> >> I
> >> > > would
> >> > > > > > like
> >> > > > > > >> to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > say,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > that
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > my
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > main
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > concern
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> about
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > terminology.
> >> > > > > > And
> >> > > > > > >> I
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > suppose
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > if
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > confuses
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > me
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > confused
> >> > > as
> >> > > > > > >> well. My
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > feeling
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > closer
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> may
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > evolving
> >> > > > > > schema".
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> [1]
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > >
> >> > >
> >> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > 2020-09-07
> >> > > > > 0:47
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > GMT+03:00,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > [hidden email]
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> Hi
> >> > > Ivan,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> I
> >> > don't
> >> > > > see
> >> > > > > > an
> >> > > > > > >> >> issue
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > with
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > that.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> >> > advance
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > > all
> >> > > > > > >> >> the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > stored
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > data
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > compliant
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> what
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> is
> >> > > > > proposed.
> >> > > > > > >> There
> >> > > > > > >> >> > are
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > no
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > restrictions
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> >> the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> schema.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> >> -Val
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> On
> >> > Sat,
> >> > > > Sep
> >> > > > > > 5,
> >> > > > > > >> >> 2020
> >> > > > > > >> >> > at
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > 9:52
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > PM
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ivan
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > [hidden email]>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > Alexey,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> I
> >> > am a
> >> > > > > > little
> >> > > > > > >> bit
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > confused
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> conforms
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> to a
> >> > > > > survey
> >> > > > > > >> [1]
> >> > > > > > >> >> (see
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > part
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > X
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Semi
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Structured
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > really
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> a
> >> > > > "dynamic
> >> > > > > > >> >> schema"
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > approach
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > as a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > kind
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> [1]
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > >
> >> > >
> >> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > 2020-09-02
> >> > > > > > >> 1:53
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > GMT+03:00,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Denis
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > > > However,
> >> > > > > > >> could
> >> > > > > > >> >> > you
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > please
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > ORM?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > Is
> >> > > > > there
> >> > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > >> use
> >> > > > > > >> >> > case
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > (I
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> haven't
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > seen
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > one
> >> > > > so
> >> > > > > > >> far)?
> >> > > > > > >> >> If
> >> > > > > > >> >> > so,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > what
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > support
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > this?
> >> > > > > In
> >> > > > > > my
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> already
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > have.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > Am
> >> > > I
> >> > > > > > >> missing
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > something?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > Good
> >> > > > > > point,
> >> > > > > > >> >> yes,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > if
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > all
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > ORM
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > > > > internally,
> >> > > > > > >> >> then
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > they
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > can
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > easily
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > translate
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> INSERT/UPDATE
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > statement
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > lists
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > all
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> Luckily,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > our
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > Spring
> >> > > > > > Data
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > integration
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > already
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > based
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > APIs
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > needs
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > to
> >> > > be
> >> > > > > > >> improved
> >> > > > > > >> >> > once
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> would
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > solve
> >> > > > a
> >> > > > > > ton
> >> > > > > > >> of
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > usability
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > issues.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > I
> >> > > > would
> >> > > > > > >> revise
> >> > > > > > >> >> the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Hibernate
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > integration
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> dev
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > phase.
> >> > > > > > Can't
> >> > > > > > >> >> say
> >> > > > > > >> >> > if
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > it's
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > used
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > lot
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > > getting
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > traction
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > sure.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > > @Michael
> >> > > > > > >> >> Pollind,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > I'll
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > loop
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > you
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > long
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> working
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > >> support
> >> > > > > > >> >> for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Micornaut
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Data
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/
> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > came
> >> > > > > > across
> >> > > > > > >> >> some
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > challenges.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Just
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > watch
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > That's
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > coming
> >> > > > > in
> >> > > > > > >> >> Ignite
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > 3.0.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > -
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > Denis
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > On
> >> > > > Mon,
> >> > > > > > Aug
> >> > > > > > >> 31,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > 2020
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > at
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > 5:11
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > Hi
> >> > > > > Denis,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > > > Generally
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > speaking, I
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > believe
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> natively
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > > > addresses
> >> > > > > > >> the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > issue
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > if
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > duplicate
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > because
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > > schema
> >> > > > > > >> will be
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > created
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > cache,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> happens
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> now.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > > > > Basically,
> >> > > > > > >> the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > schema
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > define
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > whether
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > not,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > and
> >> > > > > which
> >> > > > > > >> >> fields
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > are
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > included
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > case
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > would
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > have
> >> > > > > must
> >> > > > > > >> be
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > compliant
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > this,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > so
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > with
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > data
> >> > > > as
> >> > > > > > >> with a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > set
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > of
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > records,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > rather
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > > > However,
> >> > > > > > >> could
> >> > > > > > >> >> > you
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > please
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > ORM?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > Is
> >> > > > > there
> >> > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > >> use
> >> > > > > > >> >> > case
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > (I
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> haven't
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > seen
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > one
> >> > > > so
> >> > > > > > >> far)?
> >> > > > > > >> >> If
> >> > > > > > >> >> > so,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > what
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > support
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > this?
> >> > > > > In
> >> > > > > > my
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> already
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > have.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > Am
> >> > > I
> >> > > > > > >> missing
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > something?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > -Val
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > On
> >> > > > Mon,
> >> > > > > > Aug
> >> > > > > > >> >> 31,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > 2020
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > at
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > 2:08
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > [hidden email]>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > Val,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > I
> >> > > > > would
> >> > > > > > >> >> propose
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > adding
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > another
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > point
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > list
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> which
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > > related
> >> > > > > > >> to
> >> > > > > > >> >> the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > ORM
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > frameworks
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > such
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> Hibernate,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > Micronaut
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > many
> >> > > > > > >> others.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> Presently,
> >> > > > > > >> >> the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > storage
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > engine
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requires
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> objects
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > from
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > value
> >> > > > > > >> ones
> >> > > > > > >> >> that
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > complicate
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> frameworks
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> (especially
> >> > > > > > >> >> if
> >> > > > > > >> >> > a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > key
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > object
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > comprises
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > More
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> can
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > be
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > found
> >> > > > > > >> here:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > It
> >> > > > > will
> >> > > > > > >> be
> >> > > > > > >> >> nice
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > if
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > new
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> with
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > > single
> >> > > > > > >> >> entity
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > object
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > when
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > comes
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > split
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > > entity
> >> > > > > > >> into
> >> > > > > > >> >> a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > key
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > value.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Just
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > want
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > 3.0
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > has
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > all
> >> > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > essential
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > public
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > APIs
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> > > single-entity
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > based
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > > > approach.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > What
> >> > > > > do
> >> > > > > > >> you
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > think?
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > -
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > Denis
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > On
> >> > > > > Fri,
> >> > > > > > >> Aug
> >> > > > > > >> >> 28,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > 2020
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > at
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > 3:50
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > PM
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> Igniters,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > One
> >> > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > >> the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > big
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > changes
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proposed
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> so-called
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> "schema-first
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > approach".
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > To
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > add
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > started
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> writing
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > IEP
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > for
> >> > > > > > >> this
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > change:
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > Please
> >> > > > > > >> >> take a
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > look
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > let
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > me
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > know
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> immediate
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> thoughts,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> suggestions,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > or
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > objections.
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > -Val
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> --
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> Best
> >> > > > > > regards,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> Ivan
> >> > > > > > Pavlukhin
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > --
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> Best
> >> > > > regards,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> Ivan
> >> > > > > Pavlukhin
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best
> regards,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan
> Pavlukhin
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V.
> >> Mashenkov
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V.
> Mashenkov
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > --
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > --
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> >> > > > > > >> >> >
> >> > > > > > >> >>
> >> > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > Best regards,
> >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Best regards,
> >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>

[Andrew Mashenkov]

Hi Ilya,

Not yet, we can't predict string size [1] as a character may be encoded in
1-4 bytes.
So, we could either use a heuristic or serialize every string into an array
at first then assemble a row and copy the array into the row buffer.

Good point, we can skip vartable for the first varlen field.
We have a similar ticket [2] for the case with a single varlen. I'll fix
the description to omit a first varlen offset.

Agree, compression looks tricky and ineffective in this case.

[1]
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4385623/bytes-of-a-string-in-java/4385653
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14746

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 5:58 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hello!
>
> How about:
>
> First, all fields for which we know their specific order and size go, such
> as byte, short, int, long, boolean. This means that any short field will
> take just 2 bytes with no padding.
> Then, all var-len fields go, such as nested object, strings, etc.
>
> After that, we know total object size already, right?
> If size <= 256, then all offsets are 1 byte unsigned.
> If size < 65k, then all offsets are 2 byte.
> Else, all offsets are 4 byte.
>
> We can count offsets starting from the first byle after constant fields
> section and offsets section.
> For the first varlen field, the offset is always 0, so we may skip this one
> and start with offset of the second var field.
>
> For compression it is trickier. I suggest not having any explicit support
> for compression right here, so that later on compression may use a
> different object layout to be more efficient.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Ilya Kasnacheev
>
>
> ср, 19 мая 2021 г. в 16:43, Andrey Mashenkov <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Hi Igniters,
> >
> > I've create a ticket [1] for large row support.
> >
> > We use 2-bytes offsets for varlen fields that are supposed to be large
> > enough.
> > AFAIK, some users use multi-MB values and 64k per Row looks like a strong
> > limitation.
> >
> > So, we have either to increase offset_size up to 4-bytes or use some
> > advanced mechanics for compression or adaptive offset_size.
> >
> > 1. Increasing offset size may add overhead for keys like next:
> > class Key {
> >    int id;
> >    String str; // Some short string code.
> > }
> >
> > 2. Compression will require table to be decompressed on every varlen
> column
> > access, e.g. for comparison purposes while index scan.
> > Also, we may need to pre-calculate compressed table size to avoid buffer
> > copying (shrinking or extending) during row assembling.
> >
> > 3. Adaptive offset_size implies row size estimation.
> > We already do to reduce the probability of buffer expanding, but we need
> a
> > high margin for this purpose.
> > 'String' values size is a hard part as String character may be encoded
> into
> > 1-4 bytes depending on Charset.
> >
> > Usually, a user don't want to care about Column length limitation and
> chars
> > collation.
> > So, we can expect a Java default behavior will be used in most cases:
> > 'unlimited' string size with up to 4-bytes characters support.
> >
> > Possible strategies
> > 3.1 Introduce 'Collation' for string and validate all the chars on row
> > assembling and rely on the user limited column length.
> > Thus, we can use varlen limits (+ collation for strings) to estimate row
> > size and pre-calculate offset_size to keep it within the schema.
> > 3.2 Introduce more row flags for different offset sizes (byte, short,
> int)
> > and calculate row size right before assembling for choosing appropriate
> > offset_size.
> > Heuristics for strings using collation is also applicable here and keep
> > algorithm complexity independent from the data length, but the schema
> only.
> >
> > I like an approach '3.2' because we already estimate row size.
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14743
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 7:25 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Igniters,
> > > I've prepared PR [1] with Public Table API for final review.
> > >
> > > Main points
> > > There are 4 projection interfaces over Table for different use-cases
> > > (Plain record vs Key-Value and POJO vs Binary object) declaring
> > synchronous
> > > and asynchronous methods.
> > > Async method returns IgniteFuture as there is no consensus on
> > IgniteFuture
> > > vs JDK CompletableFuture yet.
> > > API implementation is incomplete, it just an example of how it could be
> > > done and will be implemented in future tasks.
> > > Tuple/TupleAssembler renamed to Row/RowAssembler. Now Tuple is just a
> > > dictionary representing a subset of columns, while Row is a
> schema-aware
> > > object containing key and value columns respectively to the data
> layout.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:26 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> I see, thanks.
> > >>
> > >> Let's discuss the return type - Future is not the one to use.
> > >> We should return CompletionStage, CompletableFuture, or introduce our
> > own
> > >> interface.
> > >> We agreed on the last one (custom interface) for thin clients:
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/IEP-51-Java-Thin-Client-Async-API-td48900.html
> > >>
> > >> I believe that for Ignite 3.0 we should have the following:
> > >> public interface IgniteFuture<T> extends Future<T>,
> CompletionStage<T> {
> > >>     // No-op.
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> Thoughts?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:16 AM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > >> [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Pavel,
> > >> > There are 2 PR's for the ticket[1] with two different APIs
> suggested.
> > >> > Please, take a look at PR [2].
> > >> >
> > >> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14035
> > >> > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/69
> > >> >
> > >> > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:11 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Andrey, I can't find any async methods,
> > >> > > can you please check if the changes are pushed?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 10:06 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > >> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > Pavel, good point.
> > >> > > > Thanks. I've added async methods.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 2:29 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > >> [hidden email]>
> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > Andrey,
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > What about corresponding async APIs, do we add them now or
> > later?
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 8:11 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > >> > > > > [hidden email]>
> > >> > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Hi Igniters.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > I've created a PR for Table access API [1].
> > >> > > > > > This is an initial version. So, any suggestions\objections
> are
> > >> > > > welcomed.
> > >> > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to write your comments and\or
> examples
> > >> to
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > PR.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Ignite-api module contains API classes, e.g. TableView
> classes
> > >> as
> > >> > > > > > projections for a table for different purposes.
> > >> > > > > > Ignite-table contains dummy implementation and Example class
> > >> > > explained
> > >> > > > > how
> > >> > > > > > it is supposed to be used.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Also, I'm still waiting for any feedback for Schema
> > >> configuration
> > >> > > > public
> > >> > > > > > API PR [2].
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/33
> > >> > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:05 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > >> > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > I've updated a PR regarding your feedback [1].
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:58 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > >> > > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> Folks,
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> I updated the IEP to contain the missing pieces;
> actually,
> > >> most
> > >> > of
> > >> > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> questions here were covered by the text. Please let me
> know
> > >> if
> > >> > > there
> > >> > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> something still missing or unclear.
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> чт, 31 дек. 2020 г. в 12:48, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > >> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > >> > > > > > >> >:
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> > Mikhail and Igniters,
> > >> > > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> > Thanks for your comments. The questions are reasonable,
> > >> > though I
> > >> > > > > think
> > >> > > > > > >> all
> > >> > > > > > >> > concerns are addressed by the IEP as Val mentioned. I
> > will
> > >> > > update
> > >> > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> > document according to your questions in the following
> > week
> > >> or
> > >> > > so,
> > >> > > > so
> > >> > > > > > we
> > >> > > > > > >> can
> > >> > > > > > >> > have a constructive discussion further.
> > >> > > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> > ср, 30 дек. 2020 г. в 11:45, Michael Cherkasov <
> > >> > > > > > >> > [hidden email]>:
> > >> > > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> Hi Val, Andrey,
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> thank you for clarifying.
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> I still have a few comments.
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> 1. one table == one schema. KV vs SQL:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> Looks like all agreed that KV is just a special case
> of
> > a
> > >> > > regular
> > >> > > > > > table
> > >> > > > > > >> >> with (blob,blob) schema.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> I worry about the case when the user starts from KV
> case
> > >> and
> > >> > > > later
> > >> > > > > > will
> > >> > > > > > >> >> try
> > >> > > > > > >> >> to expand it and try to leverage SQL for the existing
> KV
> > >> > table
> > >> > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> won't be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> able to do so and will require to reload data. which
> > isn't
> > >> > > > > convenient
> > >> > > > > > >> and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> sometimes not even possible. Is it possible to
> extract a
> > >> new
> > >> > > > field
> > >> > > > > > from
> > >> > > > > > >> >> (blob, blob) schema and apply index on it?
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> 2. Could you please also list all ways of schema
> > >> definition
> > >> > in
> > >> > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> IEP? It
> > >> > > > > > >> >> significant change and I bet the main point of this
> IEP,
> > >> > > everyone
> > >> > > > > > hates
> > >> > > > > > >> >> QueryEntities, they are difficult to manage and in
> > >> general,
> > >> > > it's
> > >> > > > > very
> > >> > > > > > >> >> confusing to have a data model(schemas) and
> node/cluster
> > >> > > > > > configuration
> > >> > > > > > >> in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> one place.
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> So there will be SchemaBuilder and SQL to define
> > schemas,
> > >> but
> > >> > > > > Andrey
> > >> > > > > > >> also
> > >> > > > > > >> >> mentioned annotations.
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> I personally against configuration via annotations,
> > while
> > >> > it's
> > >> > > > > > >> convenient
> > >> > > > > > >> >> for development, it difficult to manage because
> > different
> > >> > > classes
> > >> > > > > can
> > >> > > > > > >> be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> deployed on different clients/servers nodes and it can
> > >> lead
> > >> > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> unpredictable results.
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> 3. IEP doesn't mention field type changes, only
> drop/add
> > >> > > fields.
> > >> > > > > > Field
> > >> > > > > > >> >> type
> > >> > > > > > >> >> changes are extremely painful right now(if even
> > >> possible), so
> > >> > > it
> > >> > > > > > would
> > >> > > > > > >> be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> nice if some scenarios would be supported(like
> > >> int8->int16,
> > >> > or
> > >> > > > > > >> >> int8->String).
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> 4. got it, I thought IEP will have more details about
> > the
> > >> > > > > > >> implementation.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> I've seen Andrey even sent benchmark results for a new
> > >> > > > > serialization,
> > >> > > > > > >> will
> > >> > > > > > >> >> ping him about this.
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> 5. Thanks for the clarification. I had a wrong
> > >> understanding
> > >> > of
> > >> > > > > > strick
> > >> > > > > > >> >> mode.
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> вт, 29 дек. 2020 г. в 19:32, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> [hidden email]>:
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > Hi Mike,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > Thanks for providing your feedback. Please see my
> > >> comments
> > >> > > > below.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > I would also encourage you to go through the IEP-54
> > [1]
> > >> -
> > >> > it
> > >> > > > has
> > >> > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > >> lot
> > >> > > > > > >> >> of
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > detail on the topic.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > [1]
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > -Val
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:22 PM Michael Cherkasov <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Hi all,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > I reviewed the mail thread and proposal page and I
> > >> still
> > >> > > > don't
> > >> > > > > > >> fully
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > understand what is going to be changed, I would
> > really
> > >> > > > > appreciate
> > >> > > > > > >> it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> if
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > you
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > will answer a few questions:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 1. Are you going to leave only one schema per
> cache?
> > >> if
> > >> > so,
> > >> > > > > will
> > >> > > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> there
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > an option to have a table with arbitrary
> > objects(pure
> > >> KV
> > >> > > > case)?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > My opinion is that KV case should be natively
> > >> supported. I
> > >> > > > think
> > >> > > > > > this
> > >> > > > > > >> >> still
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > needs to be thought over, my current view on this is
> > >> that
> > >> > we
> > >> > > > > should
> > >> > > > > > >> have
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > separate APIs for KV and more generic storages. KV
> > >> storage
> > >> > > can
> > >> > > > be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > implemented as a "table" with two BLOB fields where
> we
> > >> will
> > >> > > > store
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > serialized key-value pairs. That would imply
> > >> > deserialization
> > >> > > on
> > >> > > > > > read,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> but I
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > believe this is OK for KV use cases. I'm happy to
> hear
> > >> > other
> > >> > > > > ideas
> > >> > > > > > >> >> though
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > :)
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0 have to
> > define
> > >> > > schema?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > SchemaBuilder
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > and SQL only? Is there an option to put the schema
> > >> > > definition
> > >> > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > configuration?(I really don't like this, I would
> > >> prefer
> > >> > to
> > >> > > > have
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > separate scripts to create schemas)
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > There will be no such thing as a static
> configuration
> > in
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > > first
> > >> > > > > > >> >> place.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > Tables and schemas are created in runtime. Even if
> > there
> > >> > is a
> > >> > > > > file
> > >> > > > > > >> >> provided
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > on node startup, this file is only applied in the
> > scope
> > >> of
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> 'start'
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > operation. All configurations will be stored in a
> meta
> > >> > > storage
> > >> > > > > > >> >> available to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > all nodes, as opposed to individual files.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 3. Is there a way to change field type? if yes,
> can
> > >> it be
> > >> > > > done
> > >> > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > runtime?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > Absolutely! IEP-54 has a whole section about schema
> > >> > > evolution.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going to be
> > >> re-worked
> > >> > > too,
> > >> > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> there
> > >> > > > > > >> >> any
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > IEP for this?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > BinaryMarshaller as a tool for arbitrary object
> > >> > serialization
> > >> > > > > will
> > >> > > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> gone,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > but we will reuse a lot of its concept to implement
> an
> > >> > > internal
> > >> > > > > > tuple
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > serialization mechanism. IEP-54 has the description
> of
> > >> the
> > >> > > > > proposed
> > >> > > > > > >> data
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > format.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 5. I don't like automatic schema evaluation when a
> > new
> > >> > > field
> > >> > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> added
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > automatically on record put, so is there a way to
> > >> > prohibit
> > >> > > > this
> > >> > > > > > >> >> behavior?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >  I think all schema changes should be done only
> > >> > explicitly
> > >> > > > > except
> > >> > > > > > >> >> initial
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > schema creation.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > The way I see it is that we should have two modes:
> > >> > > schema-first
> > >> > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > schema-last. Schema-first means exactly what you've
> > >> > > described -
> > >> > > > > > >> schemas
> > >> > > > > > >> >> are
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > defined and updated explicitly by the user. In the
> > >> > > schema-last
> > >> > > > > > mode,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > the user does not deal with schemas, as they are
> > >> inferred
> > >> > > from
> > >> > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> data
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > inserted into tables. We should definitely not mix
> > these
> > >> > > modes
> > >> > > > -
> > >> > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> has
> > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > be one or another. And it probably makes sense to
> > >> discuss
> > >> > > which
> > >> > > > > > mode
> > >> > > > > > >> >> should
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > be the default one.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Thanks,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Mike.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > [hidden email]
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Hi, Igniters.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > We all know that the current QueryEntity API is
> > not
> > >> > > > > convenient
> > >> > > > > > >> and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > needs
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > be reworked.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema
> > >> configuration
> > >> > > > public
> > >> > > > > > API
> > >> > > > > > >> >> for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Ignite 3.0.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > New schema configuration uses Builder pattern,
> > which
> > >> > > looks
> > >> > > > > more
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > comfortable
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > to use.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package with
> > the
> > >> API
> > >> > > > > itself,
> > >> > > > > > >> and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > draft
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and a test that demonstrates how the API could
> be
> > >> used.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Please note:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with
> static
> > >> > > factory
> > >> > > > > > >> methods.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * The implementation is decoupled and can be
> > easily
> > >> > > > extracted
> > >> > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > separate
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > module if we decide to do so.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are
> missed,
> > >> they
> > >> > > will
> > >> > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > >> added
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > lately
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > in separate tickes.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Index configuration extends marker interface
> > that
> > >> > makes
> > >> > > > > > >> possible
> > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Hopfully, we could add a persistent geo-indices
> > >> support
> > >> > > in
> > >> > > > > > >> future.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Supposedly, current table schema can be
> changed
> > >> via
> > >> > > > > > >> builder-like
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See
> > >> > > > > > >> >> 'TableModificationBuilder'
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > details.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have
> > 'toBuilder()'
> > >> > > > > converter
> > >> > > > > > >> for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> that
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > purpose as it is a Schema Manager responsibility
> > to
> > >> > > create
> > >> > > > > > >> mutator
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > objects
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > from the current schema,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > but implementing the Schema manager is out of
> > scope
> > >> and
> > >> > > > will
> > >> > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > designed
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > within the next task.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Interfaces implementations are out of scope. I
> > did
> > >> > not
> > >> > > > > intend
> > >> > > > > > >> to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > merge
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > them right now, but for test/demostration
> > purposes.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > It is NOT the final version and some may be
> > changed
> > >> > > before
> > >> > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> first
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > release of course.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed with
> > >> this
> > >> > > > > approach
> > >> > > > > > or
> > >> > > > > > >> >> some
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > issues should be resolved at first.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Any thoughts or objections?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Are interfaces good enough to be merged within
> the
> > >> > > current
> > >> > > > > > >> ticket?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <
> > >> > > > > > >> [hidden email]>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 2. It requires adding new types to the
> internal
> > >> > > > > > representation,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > protocol,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > e.t.c.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 3. internal representation should be the same
> as
> > >> we
> > >> > > keep
> > >> > > > > sign
> > >> > > > > > >> >> types.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > So
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > will not requires more memory
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such
> types
> > >> for
> > >> > > > > platforms
> > >> > > > > > >> >> which
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > not
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > support unsigned types. For example, a user
> > could
> > >> > > derive
> > >> > > > -6
> > >> > > > > > >> value
> > >> > > > > > >> >> in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits
> > perspective
> > >> > will
> > >> > > > be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> right). I
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > think
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such
> cases,
> > >> > > > especially
> > >> > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> will be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > bad
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for unsigned long when we require returns
> > >> BigInteger
> > >> > > > type.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix
> for
> > >> new
> > >> > > types
> > >> > > > > > like
> > >> > > > > > >> a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > '250u' -
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive
> > >> comparison
> > >> > > > logic
> > >> > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > indexes
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for
> > >> expressions.
> > >> > I
> > >> > > > > think
> > >> > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> not
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > possible for the current H2 engine and
> probably
> > >> > > possible
> > >> > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> new
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from
> anybody
> > >> who
> > >> > > > > involved
> > >> > > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> this
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > part
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > WDYT?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey
> Goncharuk <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > [hidden email]
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0:
> > >> once
> > >> > we
> > >> > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> actual
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > type
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > information, we can make proper runtime
> > >> adjustments
> > >> > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> conversions
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will be
> > >> just a
> > >> > > bit
> > >> > > > > more
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > expensive.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel
> Tupitsyn <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> [hidden email]
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons
> > >> and so
> > >> > > on
> > >> > > > > are
> > >> > > > > > >> >> broken
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I
> mentioned
> > >> this
> > >> > > > > > somewhere
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > above.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document that
> > >> SQL is
> > >> > > not
> > >> > > > > > >> >> supported
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > on
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > those
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > types,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > end of story.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey
> > >> Goncharuk
> > >> > <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable
> > >> request. I
> > >> > > > > thought
> > >> > > > > > >> about
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > this
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > when
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > I
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to
> add
> > >> > these
> > >> > > > > types
> > >> > > > > > >> right
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > away.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since
> the
> > >> > > > beginning
> > >> > > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> .NET
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > C++
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > :)
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually
> works
> > as
> > >> > > > > expected,
> > >> > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> needs
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > some
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns
> are
> > >> > false):
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - It's true that equality check works
> > >> > > properly,
> > >> > > > > but
> > >> > > > > > >> for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> SQL
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > range
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    queries it will break unless some
> > special
> > >> > care
> > >> > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> taken
> > >> > > > > > >> >> on
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > side:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255
> will
> > >> be
> > >> > > > > converted
> > >> > > > > > >> to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> -1,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > which
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we don't
> > have
> > >> > > > unsigned
> > >> > > > > > >> types
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > now,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > I
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > doubt
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    works.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - There is an obvious cross-platform
> > data
> > >> > loss
> > >> > > > > when
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > "intuitive"
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > type
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8
> > >> corresponds to
> > >> > > > byte
> > >> > > > > > >> type in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > .NET,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > but
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have
> to
> > >> use
> > >> > > short
> > >> > > > > > type
> > >> > > > > > >> in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > Java,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    will also need to take care of the
> > range
> > >> > check
> > >> > > > > > during
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > serialization).
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > I
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    think we can even allow to try to
> > >> > deserialize
> > >> > > a
> > >> > > > > > value
> > >> > > > > > >> >> into
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > arbitrary
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > type,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    but throw an exception if the range
> is
> > >> out
> > >> > of
> > >> > > > > > bounds.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP
> once
> > >> all
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > > > details
> > >> > > > > > >> >> are
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > settled
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > here?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey
> > >> Mashenkov
> > >> > <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63
> can't
> > >> be
> > >> > > > treated
> > >> > > > > > >> >> correctly
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > now
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results)
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I think we could make "true" support
> for
> > >> > > unsigned
> > >> > > > > > >> types,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> but
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > they
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map
> > >> uint64
> > >> > to
> > >> > > > > Java
> > >> > > > > > >> long
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > primitive,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > but
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > BigInteger only.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64
> to
> > >> Java
> > >> > > > long,
> > >> > > > > > but
> > >> > > > > > >> >> treat
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > negative
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > values in a different way to preserve
> > >> correct
> > >> > > > > > ordering.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > These limitations will affect only
> mixed
> > >> > > > > environments
> > >> > > > > > >> when
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > .Net
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Java
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > used to access the data.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Will this solution address your
> issues?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel
> > >> > Tupitsyn
> > >> > > <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > [hidden email]
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since
> > the
> > >> > > > > beginning
> > >> > > > > > >> with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > .NET
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > C++
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > :)
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as
> > cache
> > >> > keys
> > >> > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> values,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > as
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > fields
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > properties,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE
> x=y
> > >> > > clauses)
> > >> > > > -
> > >> > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> works
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > transparently
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the users.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats
> > those
> > >> > > values
> > >> > > > > as
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > corresponding
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > signed
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > types.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in
> > some
> > >> > cases
> > >> > > > > only
> > >> > > > > > >> >> because
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > there
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > are
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > no
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very
> > simple
> > >> > > change
> > >> > > > to
> > >> > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > protocol
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > -
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > add
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > type
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as
> > >> signed
> > >> > > > > > >> >> counterparts.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM
> Andrey
> > >> > > > Mashenkov
> > >> > > > > <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java
> > (bitwise
> > >> > > > > > >> representation
> > >> > > > > > >> >> is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > same)
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class
> with a
> > >> > uByte
> > >> > > > > field
> > >> > > > > > >> and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> map
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > 'uint8'
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > column.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to
> > "250"
> > >> and
> > >> > > put
> > >> > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> object
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > into a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > table,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a
> > single
> > >> > byte
> > >> > > > > > 'int8'
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > column.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize
> it
> > >> to
> > >> > > > > directly
> > >> > > > > > >> the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> Java
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > object
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > field
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map
> uint8
> > >> type
> > >> > to
> > >> > > > > Java
> > >> > > > > > >> >> 'short'
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > type
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > because the one expected to see
> > "250"
> > >> as
> > >> > a
> > >> > > > > value
> > >> > > > > > >> which
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > doesn't
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > fit
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > signed type.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a
> > >> BigInteger
> > >> > > > field
> > >> > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> Java.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat
> column
> > >> value
> > >> > > as
> > >> > > > > Java
> > >> > > > > > >> >> 'byte'
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > as
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > is,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > because
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a
> > negative
> > >> > > value,
> > >> > > > so
> > >> > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> should
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > cast
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > short
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger
> > for
> > >> > > > uint64)
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will
> > require
> > >> a
> > >> > > > > different
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > comparator.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM
> > Pavel
> > >> > > > Tupitsyn
> > >> > > > > <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing
> is a
> > >> good
> > >> > > > idea.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the
> > >> simple
> > >> > > > > > approach
> > >> > > > > > >> I
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > described?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM
> > >> Andrey
> > >> > > > > > Mashenkov
> > >> > > > > > >> <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing
> > range
> > >> > for
> > >> > > > > > unsigned
> > >> > > > > > >> >> types
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > then
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > we
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > could
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > add a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types
> on
> > >> > schema
> > >> > > > > level
> > >> > > > > > >> >> (like
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > nullability
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > flag)
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types
> > in
> > >> > > > storage.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate
> > >> storage
> > >> > > > > > >> type-system
> > >> > > > > > >> >> and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > binary
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > protocol
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of
> > type
> > >> > will
> > >> > > > > match
> > >> > > > > > 1
> > >> > > > > > >> to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> 1
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > storage
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (native)
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either
> > have
> > >> a
> > >> > > > > separate
> > >> > > > > > >> type
> > >> > > > > > >> >> id
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > or
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > treat
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > serialized
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema
> (signed
> > >> or
> > >> > > > > unsigned
> > >> > > > > > >> >> flag).
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever
> > >> foresee
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> consequences
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > of
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > using
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > types.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to
> unsigned
> > >> types
> > >> > > > > > perfectly
> > >> > > > > > >> >> works
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > some
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > database,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite
> > >> successor
> > >> > > > > > confession
> > >> > > > > > >> >> with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > our
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > "native"
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he
> can
> > >> use
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > > power
> > >> > > > > > >> of
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > Ignite
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Compute
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either
> > >> fail to
> > >> > > use
> > >> > > > > his
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > unsigned
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > data
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Java
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > due
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due to
> > >> > natural
> > >> > > > Java
> > >> > > > > > >> type
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > system
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > limitations
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > e.g.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to
> BigInteger.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively
> > supported
> > >> > types
> > >> > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> possible
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > value
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > ranges
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is what
> > >> > trade-off
> > >> > > > we
> > >> > > > > > >> found
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > acceptable:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > narrowing
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use
> types
> > >> of
> > >> > > wider
> > >> > > > > > >> range on
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > systems
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > like
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Java.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25
> PM
> > >> Igor
> > >> > > > > Sapego <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not
> so
> > >> hard
> > >> > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> implement
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > comparison
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does
> > not
> > >> > seem
> > >> > > > to
> > >> > > > > > be a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> big
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > issue
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > from
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > my
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned
> > >> types
> > >> > > from
> > >> > > > > > Java
> > >> > > > > > >> - I
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > think,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > if
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > user
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to
> > >> > interact
> > >> > > > with
> > >> > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> from
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > he
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > knows
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > what
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > he
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from
> > >> > > platforms
> > >> > > > > > where
> > >> > > > > > >> >> they
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > have
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > native
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > support
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > widely
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET,
> > where
> > >> > > users
> > >> > > > > > >> currently
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > have
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > make a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > manual
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > casting
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using
> > unsigned
> > >> > > types
> > >> > > > > when
> > >> > > > > > >> they
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > use
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Ignite.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06
> > PM
> > >> > Pavel
> > >> > > > > > >> Tupitsyn <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much
> simpler:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for
> > >> those
> > >> > > > types
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > (basically,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > just
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > add
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > more
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in
> > Java
> > >> > > > (bitwise
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > representation
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > same)
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have
> > >> unsigned
> > >> > > > > integers,
> > >> > > > > > >> so
> > >> > > > > > >> >> we
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > can
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > simply
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > say
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative
> > >> > comparison
> > >> > > is
> > >> > > > > not
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > supported
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > SQL
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (equality
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
> 2:40
> > >> PM
> > >> > > > Andrey
> > >> > > > > > >> >> Mashenkov
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> [hidden email]>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to
> have
> > >> i8 or
> > >> > > > int8
> > >> > > > > > >> >> instead of
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Integer.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't
> > >> address
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > > > > issue.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types
> > >> should
> > >> > be
> > >> > > > > > portable
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > across
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > different
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > systems
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type
> > >> support.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is
> > that
> > >> > > > unsigned
> > >> > > > > > >> types
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > cover
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > different
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > ranges.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to
> > >> > > introduce a
> > >> > > > > > >> uLong.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a
> big
> > >> deal
> > >> > > to
> > >> > > > > add
> > >> > > > > > >> uLong
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > type
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > support
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > at
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > storage
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes
> > and
> > >> > then
> > >> > > > use
> > >> > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> e.g.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > .Net
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > only.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support
> > it
> > >> in
> > >> > > e.g.
> > >> > > > > > Java?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long
> > >> range
> > >> > is
> > >> > > > > about
> > >> > > > > > >> >> (2^-63
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > ..
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 2^63)
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > range
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is
> to
> > >> > > restrict
> > >> > > > > > range
> > >> > > > > > >> to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> (0
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > ..
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > 2^63).
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > This
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion,
> > but
> > >> > > > doesn't
> > >> > > > > > look
> > >> > > > > > >> >> like
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 'real'
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse
> > >> when
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > > user
> > >> > > > > > >> will
> > >> > > > > > >> >> use
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > uByte,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > as
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > limitation
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally
> > unusable.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to
> > map
> > >> > > > unsigned
> > >> > > > > > >> types
> > >> > > > > > >> >> to a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > type
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > wider
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for
> negative
> > >> > values.
> > >> > > > > E.g.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> uLong to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > BigInteger.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use
> primitive
> > >> Java
> > >> > > > type
> > >> > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> Long
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > here.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > However,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > still
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong
> > in 8
> > >> > > bytes,
> > >> > > > > but
> > >> > > > > > >> >> have a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > special
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > comparator
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid
> > >> > unwanted
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > deserialization.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
> > >> 2:04 PM
> > >> > > > Pavel
> > >> > > > > > >> >> Tupitsyn
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid
> of
> > >> > "long,
> > >> > > > > short,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> byte"
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > protocol
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style,
> > >> which
> > >> > is
> > >> > > > > > concise
> > >> > > > > > >> >> and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > unambiguous:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020
> at
> > >> 1:58
> > >> > PM
> > >> > > > > Igor
> > >> > > > > > >> >> Sapego <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support
> > that.
> > >> > Also,
> > >> > > > if
> > >> > > > > we
> > >> > > > > > >> are
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > aiming
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger
> > >> > > platform-independance,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we
> may
> > >> want
> > >> > to
> > >> > > > > > support
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > bit-notation
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (int32,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a
> > >> different
> > >> > > > type
> > >> > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > different
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > platforms
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often
> > when
> > >> > > using
> > >> > > > > ODBC
> > >> > > > > > >> for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > example).
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020
> > at
> > >> > 1:34
> > >> > > PM
> > >> > > > > > Pavel
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Tupitsyn
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should
> > >> support
> > >> > > > > > unsigned
> > >> > > > > > >> >> data
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > types:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort,
> uInt,
> > >> > uLong
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have
> > >> them,
> > >> > > but
> > >> > > > > many
> > >> > > > > > >> >> other
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > languages
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > do,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the
> growing
> > >> > number
> > >> > > > of
> > >> > > > > > thin
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > clients
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > this
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > important.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in
> > >> current
> > >> > > > > > Ignite.NET
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > implementation
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > we
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > store
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed
> > internally,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge
> > >> pain
> > >> > > when
> > >> > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> comes
> > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > metadata,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > binary
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to
> > >> > deserialize
> > >> > > > int
> > >> > > > > as
> > >> > > > > > >> uint
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > when
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > you
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > have
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > class,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24,
> 2020
> > >> at
> > >> > > 12:28
> > >> > > > > PM
> > >> > > > > > >> >> Andrey
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Mashenkov <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > [hidden email]
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both
> > >> > > > serializers
> > >> > > > > > use
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > reflection
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will
> > >> allow
> > >> > > > users
> > >> > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > configure
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > static
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > schema
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > along
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we
> > >> still
> > >> > > need
> > >> > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> validate
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > user
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > classes
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > client
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest
> schema
> > in
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > grid
> > >> > > > > > >> and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > reflection
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a
> few
> > >> > > articles
> > >> > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > >> the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > internet
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > how
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > enable
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a
> task
> > >> for
> > >> > > > > > supporting
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > GraalVM,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > maybe
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > someone
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with
> > >> GraalVM
> > >> > > will
> > >> > > > > > >> suggest a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > solution
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > or
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proper
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit
> > >> later.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround
> > is
> > >> > > found,
> > >> > > > we
> > >> > > > > > >> could
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > allow
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > users
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > write
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > own
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but
> I
> > >> don't
> > >> > > > think
> > >> > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > good
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > idea
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > expose
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the
> > >> public.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24,
> > >> 2020 at
> > >> > > > 2:55
> > >> > > > > AM
> > >> > > > > > >> >> Denis
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Magda <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks
> > for
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > > > update,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of
> the
> > >> > > > serializers
> > >> > > > > > >> take
> > >> > > > > > >> >> into
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > consideration
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > native-image-generation
> > >> > > > > > >> feature of
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > GraalVM?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the
> current
> > >> > binary
> > >> > > > > > >> >> marshaller,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > we
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > can't
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > even
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > generate
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code
> > using
> > >> > our
> > >> > > > thin
> > >> > > > > > >> client
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > APIs.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov
> 23,
> > >> 2020
> > >> > at
> > >> > > > > 4:39
> > >> > > > > > AM
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > Andrey
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > [hidden email]
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to
> > >> > continue
> > >> > > > > > >> discussion
> > >> > > > > > >> >> of
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > IEP-54
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope
> everyone
> > >> who
> > >> > is
> > >> > > > > > >> interested
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > had a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > chance
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > get
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal
> [1].
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do
> not
> > >> > > hesitate
> > >> > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> ask
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > questions
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > share
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > your
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> prepared
> > a
> > >> > > > prototype
> > >> > > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > serializer
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > [2]
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > data
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the
> > proposal.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy,
> I
> > >> > > compared
> > >> > > > 2
> > >> > > > > > >> >> approaches
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > (de)serialize
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java
> > >> > > > > reflection/unsafe
> > >> > > > > > >> API
> > >> > > > > > >> >> and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > similar
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > one
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > we
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the
> second
> > >> one
> > >> > > > > > generates
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > serializer
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > particular
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > user
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino
> library
> > >> for
> > >> > > > > > >> compilation.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one
> > shows
> > >> > > better
> > >> > > > > > >> results
> > >> > > > > > >> >> in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > benchmarks.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we
> can
> > >> go
> > >> > > with
> > >> > > > it
> > >> > > > > > as
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > default
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > serializer
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> implementation
> > >> as a
> > >> > > > > > fallback
> > >> > > > > > >> if
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > someone
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > issues
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a
> > >> number
> > >> > of
> > >> > > > > tasks
> > >> > > > > > >> >> under
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > umbrella
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ticket
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm
> going
> > >> to
> > >> > > > create
> > >> > > > > > more
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > tickets
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > schema
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > manager
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > implementation,
> > >> but
> > >> > > > would
> > >> > > > > > >> like
> > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > clarify
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > some
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > details.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought
> > >> > > schemaManager
> > >> > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > >> each
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > node
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > should
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > held:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local
> > >> mapping
> > >> > of
> > >> > > > > > "schema
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > version"
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > <-->
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > validated
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes
> pair.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2.
> > >> Cluster-wide
> > >> > > > schema
> > >> > > > > > >> changes
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > history.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the
> client
> > >> side.
> > >> > > > > Before
> > >> > > > > > >> any
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > key-value
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > operation
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a
> > >> given
> > >> > > > > > key-value
> > >> > > > > > >> >> pair.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is
> no
> > >> > > > > > local-mapping
> > >> > > > > > >> >> exists
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > given
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide
> > >> schema
> > >> > > > has a
> > >> > > > > > >> more
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > recent
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > version
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be
> > >> validated
> > >> > > > > against
> > >> > > > > > >> the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > latest
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > version
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> updated/actualized.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object
> > >> > doesn't
> > >> > > > fit
> > >> > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > latest
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > schema
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > depends
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either
> > >> fail
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > > > >> operation
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > ('strict'
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > mode)
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > or
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and
> a
> > >> new
> > >> > > > schema
> > >> > > > > > >> version
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > should
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > propagated
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the
> server
> > >> side
> > >> > we
> > >> > > > > > usually
> > >> > > > > > >> >> have
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > no
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > key-value
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > classes
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema
> > change
> > >> > > > history
> > >> > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > available
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > tuple
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > has
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is
> possible
> > >> to
> > >> > > > upgrade
> > >> > > > > > any
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > received
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > tuple
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > last
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> desialization.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we
> could
> > >> allow
> > >> > > > nodes
> > >> > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> send
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > key-value
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > pairs
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't
> > >> > receive a
> > >> > > > > > schema
> > >> > > > > > >> >> update
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > yet)
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > without
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > reverting
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a
> node
> > >> with
> > >> > > > newer
> > >> > > > > > >> >> classes.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val,
> > Ivan
> > >> did
> > >> > > you
> > >> > > > > > mean
> > >> > > > > > >> the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > same?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > >
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep
> > 17,
> > >> > 2020
> > >> > > at
> > >> > > > > > 9:21
> > >> > > > > > >> AM
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > Ivan
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Pavlukhin
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do
> > not
> > >> > > ignore
> > >> > > > > > >> history.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> We
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > had
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > thread
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > many
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We
> > can
> > >> > > resume
> > >> > > > > it.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10
> > >> 0:08
> > >> > > > > > GMT+03:00,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> Denis
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Magda
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val,
> makes
> > >> > sense,
> > >> > > > > > thanks
> > >> > > > > > >> for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > explaining.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree
> that
> > >> we
> > >> > > need
> > >> > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> have a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > separate
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> > >> terms
> > >> > > > > > >> substitution.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > I'll
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > appreciate
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > if
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing
> > >> > pointers
> > >> > > to
> > >> > > > > any
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > relevant
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > IEPs
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > reasoning
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue,
> > Sep
> > >> 8,
> > >> > > 2020
> > >> > > > > at
> > >> > > > > > >> 6:01
> > >> > > > > > >> >> PM
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Valentin
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> [hidden email]>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi
> Denis,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess
> > the
> > >> > > > wording
> > >> > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > >> the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> IEP
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > little
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > bit
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that
> you
> > >> > should
> > >> > > > not
> > >> > > > > > >> create
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > nested
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > POJOs,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > but
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single
> > POJO
> > >> > that
> > >> > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> mapped
> > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > particular
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs
> are
> > >> not
> > >> > > > > > supported.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex,
> is
> > >> this
> > >> > > > > correct?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> Please
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > let
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > me
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > know
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > if
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > missing
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for
> > the
> > >> > > "cache"
> > >> > > > > > >> term, I
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > agree
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we
> > can
> > >> > > > replace
> > >> > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> with.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > "Table"
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > tightly
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is
> > >> > optional
> > >> > > in
> > >> > > > > our
> > >> > > > > > >> >> case.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > Do
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > you
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > want
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > create a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about
> > this?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue,
> > >> Sep 8,
> > >> > > > 2020
> > >> > > > > at
> > >> > > > > > >> >> 4:37 PM
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Denis
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Magda <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've
> > >> checked
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > > > IEP
> > >> > > > > > >> again
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > have a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > few
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > questions.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > Arbitrary
> > >> > > nested
> > >> > > > > > >> objects
> > >> > > > > > >> >> and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > collections
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > are
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> values.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> Nested
> > >> > POJOs
> > >> > > > > should
> > >> > > > > > >> >> either
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > inlined
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > into
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could
> > you
> > >> > > > provide a
> > >> > > > > > DDL
> > >> > > > > > >> >> code
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > snippet
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > showing
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > how
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> supposed
> > >> to
> > >> > > work?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also,
> we
> > >> keep
> > >> > > > using
> > >> > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> terms
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > "cache"
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > right
> > >> > time
> > >> > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> discuss
> > >> > > > > > >> >> an
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > alternate
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > name
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> Personally,
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > > > "table"
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > should
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > stay
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> considering
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> SQL
> > >> is
> > >> > one
> > >> > > > of
> > >> > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > primary
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > APIs
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > out-of-the-box.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On
> Mon,
> > >> Sep
> > >> > 7,
> > >> > > > 2020
> > >> > > > > > at
> > >> > > > > > >> >> 12:26
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > PM
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > [hidden email]>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> Ivan,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I
> see
> > >> your
> > >> > > > > point. I
> > >> > > > > > >> >> agree
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > that
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > automatic
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> schema-last
> > >> > > > > > >> territory.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> Actually,
> > >> > if
> > >> > > we
> > >> > > > > > >> support
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > automatic
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > evolution,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> creating a
> > >> > > > cache
> > >> > > > > > >> without
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > schema
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > inferring
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > insert.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> other
> > >> > words,
> > >> > > we
> > >> > > > > can
> > >> > > > > > >> have
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > both
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > Alexey,
> > >> > what
> > >> > > do
> > >> > > > > you
> > >> > > > > > >> >> think?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On
> > Mon,
> > >> Sep
> > >> > > 7,
> > >> > > > > 2020
> > >> > > > > > >> at
> > >> > > > > > >> >> 5:59
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > AM
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Alexey
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> [hidden email]
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > Ivan,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > Thank
> > >> > you,
> > >> > > I
> > >> > > > > got
> > >> > > > > > >> your
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > concern
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > now.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > As
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> > > terminology,
> > >> > > > I
> > >> > > > > am
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > absolutely
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > fine
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> the
> > >> > > approach
> > >> > > > > > best.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > Dynamic
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > or
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > evolving
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> > > corresponding
> > >> > > > > > >> changes
> > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > IEP
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > once
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > we
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > settle
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> пн,
> > 7
> > >> > сент.
> > >> > > > > 2020
> > >> > > > > > >> г. в
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 11:33,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Ivan
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> [hidden email]
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> Hi
> > >> Val,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> Thank
> > >> > you
> > >> > > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> your
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > answer!
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> My
> > >> > > > > > understanding
> > >> > > > > > >> is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > little
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > bit
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > different.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > > definitely
> > >> > > > > > >> should be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > possible.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > But
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > see
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > main
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> schema
> > >> > is
> > >> > > > > > >> updated".
> > >> > > > > > >> >> I
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > treat a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > common
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > and
> > >> > data
> > >> > > > > > >> >> manipulation
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > operations
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > are
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > clearly
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> enables
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > > interesting
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > capabilities,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > e.g.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > preventing
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> by
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > mistaken
> > >> > > > data
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > operations,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > restricting
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > user
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> schema.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >
> > >> > > > > Schema-first
> > >> > > > > > >> means
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > that
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > schema
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > exists
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> data
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> is
> > >> > > > compliant
> > >> > > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> it -
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > that's
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > exactly
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > what
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> A
> > >> > > > schema-last
> > >> > > > > > >> >> approach
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > mentioned
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > also
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> exists,
> > >> > > but
> > >> > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > inferred
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > from
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > data.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > proposing
> > >> > > > > > >> approach?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > And
> > >> I
> > >> > > would
> > >> > > > > > like
> > >> > > > > > >> to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > say,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > that
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > my
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > main
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > concern
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> about
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > > > terminology.
> > >> > > > > > And
> > >> > > > > > >> I
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > suppose
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > if
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > confuses
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > confused
> > >> > > as
> > >> > > > > > >> well. My
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > feeling
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > closer
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > may
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > evolving
> > >> > > > > > schema".
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > [1]
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > >
> > >>
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > > 2020-09-07
> > >> > > > > 0:47
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > GMT+03:00,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > [hidden email]
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >
> > Hi
> > >> > > Ivan,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >
> > I
> > >> > don't
> > >> > > > see
> > >> > > > > > an
> > >> > > > > > >> >> issue
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > that.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >
> > >> > advance
> > >> > > > and
> > >> > > > > > all
> > >> > > > > > >> >> the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > stored
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > data
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > compliant
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> exactly
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > what
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >
> > is
> > >> > > > > proposed.
> > >> > > > > > >> There
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > are
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > no
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > restrictions
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >
> > >> the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> schema.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >
> > >> -Val
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >
> > On
> > >> > Sat,
> > >> > > > Sep
> > >> > > > > > 5,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> 2020
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > at
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > 9:52
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > PM
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ivan
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > [hidden email]>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > > Alexey,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> I
> > >> > am a
> > >> > > > > > little
> > >> > > > > > >> bit
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > confused
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> understanding
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > conforms
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> to a
> > >> > > > > survey
> > >> > > > > > >> [1]
> > >> > > > > > >> >> (see
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > part
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > X
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Semi
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Structured
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > really
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> treat
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> a
> > >> > > > "dynamic
> > >> > > > > > >> >> schema"
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > approach
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > as a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > kind
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> [1]
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > >
> > >>
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > > > 2020-09-02
> > >> > > > > > >> 1:53
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > GMT+03:00,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Denis
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> [hidden email]
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > > > However,
> > >> > > > > > >> could
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > you
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > please
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> Ignite
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > ORM?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > Is
> > >> > > > > there
> > >> > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > >> use
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > case
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > (I
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> haven't
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > seen
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > one
> > >> > > > so
> > >> > > > > > >> far)?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> If
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > so,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > what
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side
> to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > > support
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > this?
> > >> > > > > In
> > >> > > > > > my
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > already
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > have.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > Am
> > >> > > I
> > >> > > > > > >> missing
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > something?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > Good
> > >> > > > > > point,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> yes,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > if
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > all
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > ORM
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > > > > internally,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> then
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > they
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > can
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > easily
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > translate
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> INSERT/UPDATE
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > statement
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > lists
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > all
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > Luckily,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > our
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > Spring
> > >> > > > > > Data
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > integration
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > already
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > based
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > APIs
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > needs
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > to
> > >> > > be
> > >> > > > > > >> improved
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > once
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > would
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > solve
> > >> > > > a
> > >> > > > > > ton
> > >> > > > > > >> of
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > usability
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > issues.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > I
> > >> > > > would
> > >> > > > > > >> revise
> > >> > > > > > >> >> the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Hibernate
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > integration
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> 3.0
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> dev
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > phase.
> > >> > > > > > Can't
> > >> > > > > > >> >> say
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > if
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > it's
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > used
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > lot
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > > getting
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > traction
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > sure.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > > @Michael
> > >> > > > > > >> >> Pollind,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > I'll
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > loop
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > you
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > long
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > working
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> on
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > Ignite
> > >> > > > > > >> support
> > >> > > > > > >> >> for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Micornaut
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Data
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > >
> https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/
> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > came
> > >> > > > > > across
> > >> > > > > > >> >> some
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > challenges.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Just
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > watch
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > That's
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > coming
> > >> > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> Ignite
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 3.0.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > -
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > Denis
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > On
> > >> > > > Mon,
> > >> > > > > > Aug
> > >> > > > > > >> 31,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > 2020
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > at
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > 5:11
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > Hi
> > >> > > > > Denis,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > > > Generally
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > speaking, I
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > believe
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> natively
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > > > addresses
> > >> > > > > > >> the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > issue
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > if
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > duplicate
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> objects,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > > because
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > > schema
> > >> > > > > > >> will be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > created
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > cache,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> happens
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> now.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > Basically,
> > >> > > > > > >> the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > schema
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > define
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > whether
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > not,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > and
> > >> > > > > which
> > >> > > > > > >> >> fields
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > are
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > included
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > case
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > would
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > have
> > >> > > > > must
> > >> > > > > > >> be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > compliant
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > this,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > so
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > data
> > >> > > > as
> > >> > > > > > >> with a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > set
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > of
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > records,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > > > However,
> > >> > > > > > >> could
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > you
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > please
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> Ignite
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > ORM?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > Is
> > >> > > > > there
> > >> > > > > > a
> > >> > > > > > >> use
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > case
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > (I
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> haven't
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > seen
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > one
> > >> > > > so
> > >> > > > > > >> far)?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> If
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > so,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > what
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side
> to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > > support
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > this?
> > >> > > > > In
> > >> > > > > > my
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > already
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > have.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > Am
> > >> > > I
> > >> > > > > > >> missing
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > something?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > -Val
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > On
> > >> > > > Mon,
> > >> > > > > > Aug
> > >> > > > > > >> >> 31,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 2020
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > at
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > 2:08
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > [hidden email]>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > Val,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > I
> > >> > > > > would
> > >> > > > > > >> >> propose
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > adding
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > another
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > point
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > list
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > which
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > related
> > >> > > > > > >> to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > ORM
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > frameworks
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > such
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > Hibernate,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > > > Micronaut
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > many
> > >> > > > > > >> others.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> Presently,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > storage
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > engine
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requires
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > objects
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > from
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > value
> > >> > > > > > >> ones
> > >> > > > > > >> >> that
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > complicate
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> frameworks
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> (especially
> > >> > > > > > >> >> if
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > key
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > object
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > comprises
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > More
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> this
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> can
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > found
> > >> > > > > > >> here:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > It
> > >> > > > > will
> > >> > > > > > >> be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> nice
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > if
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > new
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> work
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> with
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > single
> > >> > > > > > >> >> entity
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > object
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > when
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > comes
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need
> to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > split
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > entity
> > >> > > > > > >> into
> > >> > > > > > >> >> a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > key
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > value.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Just
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > want
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> Ignite
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > 3.0
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > has
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > all
> > >> > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > essential
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > public
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > APIs
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> > > single-entity
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > based
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > approach.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > What
> > >> > > > > do
> > >> > > > > > >> you
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > think?
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > -
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > Denis
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > On
> > >> > > > > Fri,
> > >> > > > > > >> Aug
> > >> > > > > > >> >> 28,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > 2020
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > at
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > 3:50
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > PM
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> Igniters,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > One
> > >> > > > > > of
> > >> > > > > > >> the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > big
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > changes
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proposed
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> so-called
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> "schema-first
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > approach".
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > To
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > add
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > started
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> writing
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > the
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > IEP
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > for
> > >> > > > > > >> this
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > change:
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > Please
> > >> > > > > > >> >> take a
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > look
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > let
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > me
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > immediate
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> thoughts,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> suggestions,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > or
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > objections.
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > -Val
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> --
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> Best
> > >> > > > > > regards,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> Ivan
> > >> > > > > > Pavlukhin
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> --
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > Best
> > >> > > > regards,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > Ivan
> > >> > > > > Pavlukhin
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best
> > regards,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan
> > Pavlukhin
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best
> regards,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V.
> > >> Mashenkov
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V.
> > Mashenkov
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > --
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Best regards,
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > >> > > > > > >> >
> > >> > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > Best regards,
> > >> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > --
> > >> > > > Best regards,
> > >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > Best regards,
> > >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >
>

--
Best regards,
Andrey V. Mashenkov

[Ilya Kasnacheev]

Hello!

I never said that you can predict string size. Strings are definitely
varlen. You don't know string length when looking at object schema, I don't
even see why char-to-byte mapping is relevant here.

What do you think about the approach where offsets use 1-2-4 bytes based on
overall varlen section size, which is known in advance as I assume?

With compression, some optimizations may be possible since you can compress
blocks of data and then concatenate these compressed fragments. So you can
say that "I want 40-th byte of 3rd fragment" but it sounds like an overkill
mostly.

Regards,
--
Ilya Kasnacheev


чт, 20 мая 2021 г. в 18:23, Andrey Mashenkov <[hidden email]>:

> Hi Ilya,
>
> Not yet, we can't predict string size [1] as a character may be encoded in
> 1-4 bytes.
> So, we could either use a heuristic or serialize every string into an array
> at first then assemble a row and copy the array into the row buffer.
>
> Good point, we can skip vartable for the first varlen field.
> We have a similar ticket [2] for the case with a single varlen. I'll fix
> the description to omit a first varlen offset.
>
> Agree, compression looks tricky and ineffective in this case.
>
> [1]
>
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4385623/bytes-of-a-string-in-java/4385653
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14746
>
> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 5:58 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <[hidden email]
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Hello!
> >
> > How about:
> >
> > First, all fields for which we know their specific order and size go,
> such
> > as byte, short, int, long, boolean. This means that any short field will
> > take just 2 bytes with no padding.
> > Then, all var-len fields go, such as nested object, strings, etc.
> >
> > After that, we know total object size already, right?
> > If size <= 256, then all offsets are 1 byte unsigned.
> > If size < 65k, then all offsets are 2 byte.
> > Else, all offsets are 4 byte.
> >
> > We can count offsets starting from the first byle after constant fields
> > section and offsets section.
> > For the first varlen field, the offset is always 0, so we may skip this
> one
> > and start with offset of the second var field.
> >
> > For compression it is trickier. I suggest not having any explicit support
> > for compression right here, so that later on compression may use a
> > different object layout to be more efficient.
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Ilya Kasnacheev
> >
> >
> > ср, 19 мая 2021 г. в 16:43, Andrey Mashenkov <[hidden email]
> >:
> >
> > > Hi Igniters,
> > >
> > > I've create a ticket [1] for large row support.
> > >
> > > We use 2-bytes offsets for varlen fields that are supposed to be large
> > > enough.
> > > AFAIK, some users use multi-MB values and 64k per Row looks like a
> strong
> > > limitation.
> > >
> > > So, we have either to increase offset_size up to 4-bytes or use some
> > > advanced mechanics for compression or adaptive offset_size.
> > >
> > > 1. Increasing offset size may add overhead for keys like next:
> > > class Key {
> > >    int id;
> > >    String str; // Some short string code.
> > > }
> > >
> > > 2. Compression will require table to be decompressed on every varlen
> > column
> > > access, e.g. for comparison purposes while index scan.
> > > Also, we may need to pre-calculate compressed table size to avoid
> buffer
> > > copying (shrinking or extending) during row assembling.
> > >
> > > 3. Adaptive offset_size implies row size estimation.
> > > We already do to reduce the probability of buffer expanding, but we
> need
> > a
> > > high margin for this purpose.
> > > 'String' values size is a hard part as String character may be encoded
> > into
> > > 1-4 bytes depending on Charset.
> > >
> > > Usually, a user don't want to care about Column length limitation and
> > chars
> > > collation.
> > > So, we can expect a Java default behavior will be used in most cases:
> > > 'unlimited' string size with up to 4-bytes characters support.
> > >
> > > Possible strategies
> > > 3.1 Introduce 'Collation' for string and validate all the chars on row
> > > assembling and rely on the user limited column length.
> > > Thus, we can use varlen limits (+ collation for strings) to estimate
> row
> > > size and pre-calculate offset_size to keep it within the schema.
> > > 3.2 Introduce more row flags for different offset sizes (byte, short,
> > int)
> > > and calculate row size right before assembling for choosing appropriate
> > > offset_size.
> > > Heuristics for strings using collation is also applicable here and keep
> > > algorithm complexity independent from the data length, but the schema
> > only.
> > >
> > > I like an approach '3.2' because we already estimate row size.
> > > Any thoughts?
> > >
> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14743
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 7:25 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Igniters,
> > > > I've prepared PR [1] with Public Table API for final review.
> > > >
> > > > Main points
> > > > There are 4 projection interfaces over Table for different use-cases
> > > > (Plain record vs Key-Value and POJO vs Binary object) declaring
> > > synchronous
> > > > and asynchronous methods.
> > > > Async method returns IgniteFuture as there is no consensus on
> > > IgniteFuture
> > > > vs JDK CompletableFuture yet.
> > > > API implementation is incomplete, it just an example of how it could
> be
> > > > done and will be implemented in future tasks.
> > > > Tuple/TupleAssembler renamed to Row/RowAssembler. Now Tuple is just a
> > > > dictionary representing a subset of columns, while Row is a
> > schema-aware
> > > > object containing key and value columns respectively to the data
> > layout.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:26 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I see, thanks.
> > > >>
> > > >> Let's discuss the return type - Future is not the one to use.
> > > >> We should return CompletionStage, CompletableFuture, or introduce
> our
> > > own
> > > >> interface.
> > > >> We agreed on the last one (custom interface) for thin clients:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/IEP-51-Java-Thin-Client-Async-API-td48900.html
> > > >>
> > > >> I believe that for Ignite 3.0 we should have the following:
> > > >> public interface IgniteFuture<T> extends Future<T>,
> > CompletionStage<T> {
> > > >>     // No-op.
> > > >> }
> > > >>
> > > >> Thoughts?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:16 AM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > >> [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Pavel,
> > > >> > There are 2 PR's for the ticket[1] with two different APIs
> > suggested.
> > > >> > Please, take a look at PR [2].
> > > >> >
> > > >> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14035
> > > >> > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/69
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:11 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Andrey, I can't find any async methods,
> > > >> > > can you please check if the changes are pushed?
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 10:06 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > >> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > Pavel, good point.
> > > >> > > > Thanks. I've added async methods.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 2:29 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > >> [hidden email]>
> > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > Andrey,
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > What about corresponding async APIs, do we add them now or
> > > later?
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 8:11 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > >> > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Hi Igniters.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > I've created a PR for Table access API [1].
> > > >> > > > > > This is an initial version. So, any suggestions\objections
> > are
> > > >> > > > welcomed.
> > > >> > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to write your comments and\or
> > examples
> > > >> to
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > PR.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Ignite-api module contains API classes, e.g. TableView
> > classes
> > > >> as
> > > >> > > > > > projections for a table for different purposes.
> > > >> > > > > > Ignite-table contains dummy implementation and Example
> class
> > > >> > > explained
> > > >> > > > > how
> > > >> > > > > > it is supposed to be used.
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Also, I'm still waiting for any feedback for Schema
> > > >> configuration
> > > >> > > > public
> > > >> > > > > > API PR [2].
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/33
> > > >> > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:05 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > >> > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > I've updated a PR regarding your feedback [1].
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:58 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > >> > > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> Folks,
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> I updated the IEP to contain the missing pieces;
> > actually,
> > > >> most
> > > >> > of
> > > >> > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> questions here were covered by the text. Please let me
> > know
> > > >> if
> > > >> > > there
> > > >> > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> something still missing or unclear.
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> чт, 31 дек. 2020 г. в 12:48, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > >> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > >> > > > > > >> >:
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> > Mikhail and Igniters,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> > Thanks for your comments. The questions are
> reasonable,
> > > >> > though I
> > > >> > > > > think
> > > >> > > > > > >> all
> > > >> > > > > > >> > concerns are addressed by the IEP as Val mentioned. I
> > > will
> > > >> > > update
> > > >> > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> > document according to your questions in the following
> > > week
> > > >> or
> > > >> > > so,
> > > >> > > > so
> > > >> > > > > > we
> > > >> > > > > > >> can
> > > >> > > > > > >> > have a constructive discussion further.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> > ср, 30 дек. 2020 г. в 11:45, Michael Cherkasov <
> > > >> > > > > > >> > [hidden email]>:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Hi Val, Andrey,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> thank you for clarifying.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> I still have a few comments.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> 1. one table == one schema. KV vs SQL:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Looks like all agreed that KV is just a special case
> > of
> > > a
> > > >> > > regular
> > > >> > > > > > table
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> with (blob,blob) schema.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> I worry about the case when the user starts from KV
> > case
> > > >> and
> > > >> > > > later
> > > >> > > > > > will
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> try
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> to expand it and try to leverage SQL for the
> existing
> > KV
> > > >> > table
> > > >> > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> won't be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> able to do so and will require to reload data. which
> > > isn't
> > > >> > > > > convenient
> > > >> > > > > > >> and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> sometimes not even possible. Is it possible to
> > extract a
> > > >> new
> > > >> > > > field
> > > >> > > > > > from
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> (blob, blob) schema and apply index on it?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> 2. Could you please also list all ways of schema
> > > >> definition
> > > >> > in
> > > >> > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> IEP? It
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> significant change and I bet the main point of this
> > IEP,
> > > >> > > everyone
> > > >> > > > > > hates
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> QueryEntities, they are difficult to manage and in
> > > >> general,
> > > >> > > it's
> > > >> > > > > very
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> confusing to have a data model(schemas) and
> > node/cluster
> > > >> > > > > > configuration
> > > >> > > > > > >> in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> one place.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> So there will be SchemaBuilder and SQL to define
> > > schemas,
> > > >> but
> > > >> > > > > Andrey
> > > >> > > > > > >> also
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> mentioned annotations.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> I personally against configuration via annotations,
> > > while
> > > >> > it's
> > > >> > > > > > >> convenient
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> for development, it difficult to manage because
> > > different
> > > >> > > classes
> > > >> > > > > can
> > > >> > > > > > >> be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> deployed on different clients/servers nodes and it
> can
> > > >> lead
> > > >> > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> unpredictable results.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> 3. IEP doesn't mention field type changes, only
> > drop/add
> > > >> > > fields.
> > > >> > > > > > Field
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> type
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> changes are extremely painful right now(if even
> > > >> possible), so
> > > >> > > it
> > > >> > > > > > would
> > > >> > > > > > >> be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> nice if some scenarios would be supported(like
> > > >> int8->int16,
> > > >> > or
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> int8->String).
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> 4. got it, I thought IEP will have more details
> about
> > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> implementation.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> I've seen Andrey even sent benchmark results for a
> new
> > > >> > > > > serialization,
> > > >> > > > > > >> will
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> ping him about this.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> 5. Thanks for the clarification. I had a wrong
> > > >> understanding
> > > >> > of
> > > >> > > > > > strick
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> mode.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> вт, 29 дек. 2020 г. в 19:32, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> [hidden email]>:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Hi Mike,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Thanks for providing your feedback. Please see my
> > > >> comments
> > > >> > > > below.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > I would also encourage you to go through the
> IEP-54
> > > [1]
> > > >> -
> > > >> > it
> > > >> > > > has
> > > >> > > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > >> lot
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> of
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > detail on the topic.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > [1]
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > -Val
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:22 PM Michael
> Cherkasov <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Hi all,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > I reviewed the mail thread and proposal page
> and I
> > > >> still
> > > >> > > > don't
> > > >> > > > > > >> fully
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > understand what is going to be changed, I would
> > > really
> > > >> > > > > appreciate
> > > >> > > > > > >> it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> if
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > will answer a few questions:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 1. Are you going to leave only one schema per
> > cache?
> > > >> if
> > > >> > so,
> > > >> > > > > will
> > > >> > > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> there
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > an option to have a table with arbitrary
> > > objects(pure
> > > >> KV
> > > >> > > > case)?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > My opinion is that KV case should be natively
> > > >> supported. I
> > > >> > > > think
> > > >> > > > > > this
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> still
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > needs to be thought over, my current view on this
> is
> > > >> that
> > > >> > we
> > > >> > > > > should
> > > >> > > > > > >> have
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > separate APIs for KV and more generic storages. KV
> > > >> storage
> > > >> > > can
> > > >> > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > implemented as a "table" with two BLOB fields
> where
> > we
> > > >> will
> > > >> > > > store
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > serialized key-value pairs. That would imply
> > > >> > deserialization
> > > >> > > on
> > > >> > > > > > read,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> but I
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > believe this is OK for KV use cases. I'm happy to
> > hear
> > > >> > other
> > > >> > > > > ideas
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> though
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > :)
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0 have to
> > > define
> > > >> > > schema?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > SchemaBuilder
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > and SQL only? Is there an option to put the
> schema
> > > >> > > definition
> > > >> > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > configuration?(I really don't like this, I would
> > > >> prefer
> > > >> > to
> > > >> > > > have
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > separate scripts to create schemas)
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > There will be no such thing as a static
> > configuration
> > > in
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > > first
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> place.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Tables and schemas are created in runtime. Even if
> > > there
> > > >> > is a
> > > >> > > > > file
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> provided
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > on node startup, this file is only applied in the
> > > scope
> > > >> of
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> 'start'
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > operation. All configurations will be stored in a
> > meta
> > > >> > > storage
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> available to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > all nodes, as opposed to individual files.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 3. Is there a way to change field type? if yes,
> > can
> > > >> it be
> > > >> > > > done
> > > >> > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > runtime?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Absolutely! IEP-54 has a whole section about
> schema
> > > >> > > evolution.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going to be
> > > >> re-worked
> > > >> > > too,
> > > >> > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> there
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> any
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > IEP for this?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > BinaryMarshaller as a tool for arbitrary object
> > > >> > serialization
> > > >> > > > > will
> > > >> > > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> gone,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > but we will reuse a lot of its concept to
> implement
> > an
> > > >> > > internal
> > > >> > > > > > tuple
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > serialization mechanism. IEP-54 has the
> description
> > of
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > proposed
> > > >> > > > > > >> data
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > format.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 5. I don't like automatic schema evaluation
> when a
> > > new
> > > >> > > field
> > > >> > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> added
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > automatically on record put, so is there a way
> to
> > > >> > prohibit
> > > >> > > > this
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> behavior?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >  I think all schema changes should be done only
> > > >> > explicitly
> > > >> > > > > except
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> initial
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > schema creation.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > The way I see it is that we should have two modes:
> > > >> > > schema-first
> > > >> > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > schema-last. Schema-first means exactly what
> you've
> > > >> > > described -
> > > >> > > > > > >> schemas
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> are
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > defined and updated explicitly by the user. In the
> > > >> > > schema-last
> > > >> > > > > > mode,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > the user does not deal with schemas, as they are
> > > >> inferred
> > > >> > > from
> > > >> > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> data
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > inserted into tables. We should definitely not mix
> > > these
> > > >> > > modes
> > > >> > > > -
> > > >> > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> has
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > be one or another. And it probably makes sense to
> > > >> discuss
> > > >> > > which
> > > >> > > > > > mode
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> should
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > be the default one.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Thanks,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Mike.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > [hidden email]
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Hi, Igniters.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > We all know that the current QueryEntity API
> is
> > > not
> > > >> > > > > convenient
> > > >> > > > > > >> and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > needs
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > be reworked.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema
> > > >> configuration
> > > >> > > > public
> > > >> > > > > > API
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Ignite 3.0.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > New schema configuration uses Builder pattern,
> > > which
> > > >> > > looks
> > > >> > > > > more
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > comfortable
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > to use.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package
> with
> > > the
> > > >> API
> > > >> > > > > itself,
> > > >> > > > > > >> and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > draft
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and a test that demonstrates how the API could
> > be
> > > >> used.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Please note:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with
> > static
> > > >> > > factory
> > > >> > > > > > >> methods.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * The implementation is decoupled and can be
> > > easily
> > > >> > > > extracted
> > > >> > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > separate
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > module if we decide to do so.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are
> > missed,
> > > >> they
> > > >> > > will
> > > >> > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > >> added
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > lately
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > in separate tickes.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Index configuration extends marker interface
> > > that
> > > >> > makes
> > > >> > > > > > >> possible
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Hopfully, we could add a persistent
> geo-indices
> > > >> support
> > > >> > > in
> > > >> > > > > > >> future.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Supposedly, current table schema can be
> > changed
> > > >> via
> > > >> > > > > > >> builder-like
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> 'TableModificationBuilder'
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > details.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have
> > > 'toBuilder()'
> > > >> > > > > converter
> > > >> > > > > > >> for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> that
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > purpose as it is a Schema Manager
> responsibility
> > > to
> > > >> > > create
> > > >> > > > > > >> mutator
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > objects
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > from the current schema,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > but implementing the Schema manager is out of
> > > scope
> > > >> and
> > > >> > > > will
> > > >> > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > designed
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > within the next task.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Interfaces implementations are out of
> scope. I
> > > did
> > > >> > not
> > > >> > > > > intend
> > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > merge
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > them right now, but for test/demostration
> > > purposes.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > It is NOT the final version and some may be
> > > changed
> > > >> > > before
> > > >> > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> first
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > release of course.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed
> with
> > > >> this
> > > >> > > > > approach
> > > >> > > > > > or
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> some
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > issues should be resolved at first.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Any thoughts or objections?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Are interfaces good enough to be merged within
> > the
> > > >> > > current
> > > >> > > > > > >> ticket?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <
> > > >> > > > > > >> [hidden email]>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned
> types:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 2. It requires adding new types to the
> > internal
> > > >> > > > > > representation,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > protocol,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > e.t.c.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 3. internal representation should be the
> same
> > as
> > > >> we
> > > >> > > keep
> > > >> > > > > sign
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> types.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > So
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > will not requires more memory
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such
> > types
> > > >> for
> > > >> > > > > platforms
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> which
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > not
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > support unsigned types. For example, a user
> > > could
> > > >> > > derive
> > > >> > > > -6
> > > >> > > > > > >> value
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits
> > > perspective
> > > >> > will
> > > >> > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> right). I
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > think
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such
> > cases,
> > > >> > > > especially
> > > >> > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> will be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > bad
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for unsigned long when we require returns
> > > >> BigInteger
> > > >> > > > type.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix
> > for
> > > >> new
> > > >> > > types
> > > >> > > > > > like
> > > >> > > > > > >> a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > '250u' -
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive
> > > >> comparison
> > > >> > > > logic
> > > >> > > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > indexes
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for
> > > >> expressions.
> > > >> > I
> > > >> > > > > think
> > > >> > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> not
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > possible for the current H2 engine and
> > probably
> > > >> > > possible
> > > >> > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> new
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from
> > anybody
> > > >> who
> > > >> > > > > involved
> > > >> > > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> this
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > part
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > WDYT?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey
> > Goncharuk <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > [hidden email]
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in
> 3.0:
> > > >> once
> > > >> > we
> > > >> > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> actual
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > type
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > information, we can make proper runtime
> > > >> adjustments
> > > >> > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> conversions
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will
> be
> > > >> just a
> > > >> > > bit
> > > >> > > > > more
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > expensive.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel
> > Tupitsyn <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> [hidden email]
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality
> comparisons
> > > >> and so
> > > >> > > on
> > > >> > > > > are
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> broken
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I
> > mentioned
> > > >> this
> > > >> > > > > > somewhere
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > above.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document
> that
> > > >> SQL is
> > > >> > > not
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> supported
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > on
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > those
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > types,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > end of story.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey
> > > >> Goncharuk
> > > >> > <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable
> > > >> request. I
> > > >> > > > > thought
> > > >> > > > > > >> about
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > this
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > when
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > I
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to
> > add
> > > >> > these
> > > >> > > > > types
> > > >> > > > > > >> right
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > away.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since
> > the
> > > >> > > > beginning
> > > >> > > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> .NET
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > C++
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > :)
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually
> > works
> > > as
> > > >> > > > > expected,
> > > >> > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> needs
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > some
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns
> > are
> > > >> > false):
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - It's true that equality check
> works
> > > >> > > properly,
> > > >> > > > > but
> > > >> > > > > > >> for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> SQL
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > range
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    queries it will break unless some
> > > special
> > > >> > care
> > > >> > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> taken
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> on
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > side:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255
> > will
> > > >> be
> > > >> > > > > converted
> > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> -1,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > which
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we
> don't
> > > have
> > > >> > > > unsigned
> > > >> > > > > > >> types
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > now,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > I
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > doubt
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    works.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - There is an obvious
> cross-platform
> > > data
> > > >> > loss
> > > >> > > > > when
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > "intuitive"
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > type
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8
> > > >> corresponds to
> > > >> > > > byte
> > > >> > > > > > >> type in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > .NET,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > but
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will have
> > to
> > > >> use
> > > >> > > short
> > > >> > > > > > type
> > > >> > > > > > >> in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Java,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    will also need to take care of the
> > > range
> > > >> > check
> > > >> > > > > > during
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > serialization).
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > I
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    think we can even allow to try to
> > > >> > deserialize
> > > >> > > a
> > > >> > > > > > value
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> into
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > arbitrary
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > type,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    but throw an exception if the range
> > is
> > > >> out
> > > >> > of
> > > >> > > > > > bounds.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's
> comments.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP
> > once
> > > >> all
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > > > details
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> are
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > settled
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > here?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey
> > > >> Mashenkov
> > > >> > <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63
> > can't
> > > >> be
> > > >> > > > treated
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> correctly
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > now
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong
> results)
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I think we could make "true" support
> > for
> > > >> > > unsigned
> > > >> > > > > > >> types,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> but
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > they
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to
> map
> > > >> uint64
> > > >> > to
> > > >> > > > > Java
> > > >> > > > > > >> long
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > primitive,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > but
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > BigInteger only.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64
> > to
> > > >> Java
> > > >> > > > long,
> > > >> > > > > > but
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> treat
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > negative
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > values in a different way to
> preserve
> > > >> correct
> > > >> > > > > > ordering.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > These limitations will affect only
> > mixed
> > > >> > > > > environments
> > > >> > > > > > >> when
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > .Net
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Java
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > used to access the data.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Will this solution address your
> > issues?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM
> Pavel
> > > >> > Tupitsyn
> > > >> > > <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite
> since
> > > the
> > > >> > > > > beginning
> > > >> > > > > > >> with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > .NET
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > C++
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > :)
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as
> > > cache
> > > >> > keys
> > > >> > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> values,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > as
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > fields
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > properties,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE
> > x=y
> > > >> > > clauses)
> > > >> > > > -
> > > >> > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> works
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > transparently
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the users.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats
> > > those
> > > >> > > values
> > > >> > > > > as
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > corresponding
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > signed
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in
> > > some
> > > >> > cases
> > > >> > > > > only
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> because
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > there
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > are
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > no
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very
> > > simple
> > > >> > > change
> > > >> > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > protocol
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > -
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > add
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > type
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way
> as
> > > >> signed
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> counterparts.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM
> > Andrey
> > > >> > > > Mashenkov
> > > >> > > > > <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java
> > > (bitwise
> > > >> > > > > > >> representation
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > same)
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class
> > with a
> > > >> > uByte
> > > >> > > > > field
> > > >> > > > > > >> and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> map
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > 'uint8'
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > column.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to
> > > "250"
> > > >> and
> > > >> > > put
> > > >> > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> object
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > into a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > table,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a
> > > single
> > > >> > byte
> > > >> > > > > > 'int8'
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > column.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't
> deserialize
> > it
> > > >> to
> > > >> > > > > directly
> > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Java
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > object
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > field
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map
> > uint8
> > > >> type
> > > >> > to
> > > >> > > > > Java
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> 'short'
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > type
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > because the one expected to see
> > > "250"
> > > >> as
> > > >> > a
> > > >> > > > > value
> > > >> > > > > > >> which
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > doesn't
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > fit
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > signed type.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a
> > > >> BigInteger
> > > >> > > > field
> > > >> > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Java.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat
> > column
> > > >> value
> > > >> > > as
> > > >> > > > > Java
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> 'byte'
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > as
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > is,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > because
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a
> > > negative
> > > >> > > value,
> > > >> > > > so
> > > >> > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> should
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > cast
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > short
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to
> BigInteger
> > > for
> > > >> > > > uint64)
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will
> > > require
> > > >> a
> > > >> > > > > different
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > comparator.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM
> > > Pavel
> > > >> > > > Tupitsyn
> > > >> > > > > <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing
> > is a
> > > >> good
> > > >> > > > idea.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with
> the
> > > >> simple
> > > >> > > > > > approach
> > > >> > > > > > >> I
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > described?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01
> PM
> > > >> Andrey
> > > >> > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > >> > > > > > >> <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing
> > > range
> > > >> > for
> > > >> > > > > > unsigned
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> types
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > then
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > we
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > could
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > add a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned
> types
> > on
> > > >> > schema
> > > >> > > > > level
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> (like
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > nullability
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > flag)
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed
> types
> > > in
> > > >> > > > storage.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate
> > > >> storage
> > > >> > > > > > >> type-system
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > binary
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > protocol
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of
> > > type
> > > >> > will
> > > >> > > > > match
> > > >> > > > > > 1
> > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> 1
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > storage
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (native)
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either
> > > have
> > > >> a
> > > >> > > > > separate
> > > >> > > > > > >> type
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> id
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > or
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > treat
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > serialized
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema
> > (signed
> > > >> or
> > > >> > > > > unsigned
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> flag).
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever
> > > >> foresee
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> consequences
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > of
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > using
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to
> > unsigned
> > > >> types
> > > >> > > > > > perfectly
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> works
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > some
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > database,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite
> > > >> successor
> > > >> > > > > > confession
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > our
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > "native"
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he
> > can
> > > >> use
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > > power
> > > >> > > > > > >> of
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Compute
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > on
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will
> either
> > > >> fail to
> > > >> > > use
> > > >> > > > > his
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > unsigned
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > data
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > on
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Java
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > due
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due
> to
> > > >> > natural
> > > >> > > > Java
> > > >> > > > > > >> type
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > system
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > limitations
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to
> > BigInteger.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively
> > > supported
> > > >> > types
> > > >> > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> possible
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > value
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > ranges
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is
> what
> > > >> > trade-off
> > > >> > > > we
> > > >> > > > > > >> found
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > acceptable:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > narrowing
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use
> > types
> > > >> of
> > > >> > > wider
> > > >> > > > > > >> range on
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > systems
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > like
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Java.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25
> > PM
> > > >> Igor
> > > >> > > > > Sapego <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is
> not
> > so
> > > >> hard
> > > >> > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> implement
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > comparison
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it
> does
> > > not
> > > >> > seem
> > > >> > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > be a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> big
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > issue
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > from
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > my
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of
> unsigned
> > > >> types
> > > >> > > from
> > > >> > > > > > Java
> > > >> > > > > > >> - I
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > think,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > if
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > user
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going
> to
> > > >> > interact
> > > >> > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> from
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > he
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > knows
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > what
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > he
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use
> from
> > > >> > > platforms
> > > >> > > > > > where
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> they
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > have
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > native
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > support
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > widely
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET,
> > > where
> > > >> > > users
> > > >> > > > > > >> currently
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > have
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > make a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > manual
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > casting
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using
> > > unsigned
> > > >> > > types
> > > >> > > > > when
> > > >> > > > > > >> they
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > use
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Ignite.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
> 3:06
> > > PM
> > > >> > Pavel
> > > >> > > > > > >> Tupitsyn <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much
> > simpler:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support
> for
> > > >> those
> > > >> > > > types
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > (basically,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > just
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > add
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > more
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in
> > > Java
> > > >> > > > (bitwise
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > representation
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > same)
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have
> > > >> unsigned
> > > >> > > > > integers,
> > > >> > > > > > >> so
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> we
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > can
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > simply
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > say
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative
> > > >> > comparison
> > > >> > > is
> > > >> > > > > not
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > supported
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > SQL
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (equality
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
> > 2:40
> > > >> PM
> > > >> > > > Andrey
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Mashenkov
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > [hidden email]>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and
> Igor.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to
> > have
> > > >> i8 or
> > > >> > > > int8
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> instead of
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Integer.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't
> > > >> address
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > > > > issue.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types
> > > >> should
> > > >> > be
> > > >> > > > > > portable
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > across
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > different
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > systems
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type
> > > >> support.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is
> > > that
> > > >> > > > unsigned
> > > >> > > > > > >> types
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > cover
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > different
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > ranges.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want
> to
> > > >> > > introduce a
> > > >> > > > > > >> uLong.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a
> > big
> > > >> deal
> > > >> > > to
> > > >> > > > > add
> > > >> > > > > > >> uLong
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > type
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > support
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > at
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > storage
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8
> bytes
> > > and
> > > >> > then
> > > >> > > > use
> > > >> > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> e.g.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > .Net
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > only.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could
> support
> > > it
> > > >> in
> > > >> > > e.g.
> > > >> > > > > > Java?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind
> Long
> > > >> range
> > > >> > is
> > > >> > > > > about
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> (2^-63
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > ..
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 2^63)
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > range
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is
> > to
> > > >> > > restrict
> > > >> > > > > > range
> > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> (0
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > ..
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > 2^63).
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > This
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no
> conversion,
> > > but
> > > >> > > > doesn't
> > > >> > > > > > look
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> like
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 'real'
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go
> worse
> > > >> when
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > > user
> > > >> > > > > > >> will
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> use
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > uByte,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > as
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > limitation
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally
> > > unusable.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is
> to
> > > map
> > > >> > > > unsigned
> > > >> > > > > > >> types
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> to a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > type
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > wider
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for
> > negative
> > > >> > values.
> > > >> > > > > E.g.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> uLong to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > BigInteger.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use
> > primitive
> > > >> Java
> > > >> > > > type
> > > >> > > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Long
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > here.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > However,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > still
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store
> uLong
> > > in 8
> > > >> > > bytes,
> > > >> > > > > but
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> have a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > special
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > comparator
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to
> avoid
> > > >> > unwanted
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > deserialization.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020
> at
> > > >> 2:04 PM
> > > >> > > > Pavel
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Tupitsyn
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid
> > of
> > > >> > "long,
> > > >> > > > > short,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> byte"
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > protocol
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust
> style,
> > > >> which
> > > >> > is
> > > >> > > > > > concise
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > unambiguous:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16,
> etc
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020
> > at
> > > >> 1:58
> > > >> > PM
> > > >> > > > > Igor
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Sapego <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support
> > > that.
> > > >> > Also,
> > > >> > > > if
> > > >> > > > > we
> > > >> > > > > > >> are
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > aiming
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger
> > > >> > > platform-independance,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we
> > may
> > > >> want
> > > >> > to
> > > >> > > > > > support
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > bit-notation
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (int32,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a
> > > >> different
> > > >> > > > type
> > > >> > > > > on
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > different
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > platforms
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens
> often
> > > when
> > > >> > > using
> > > >> > > > > ODBC
> > > >> > > > > > >> for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > example).
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24,
> 2020
> > > at
> > > >> > 1:34
> > > >> > > PM
> > > >> > > > > > Pavel
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Tupitsyn
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we
> should
> > > >> support
> > > >> > > > > > unsigned
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> data
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > types:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort,
> > uInt,
> > > >> > uLong
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not
> have
> > > >> them,
> > > >> > > but
> > > >> > > > > many
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> other
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > languages
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > do,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the
> > growing
> > > >> > number
> > > >> > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > thin
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > clients
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > this
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in
> > > >> current
> > > >> > > > > > Ignite.NET
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > implementation
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > we
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > store
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed
> > > internally,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a
> huge
> > > >> pain
> > > >> > > when
> > > >> > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> comes
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > metadata,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > binary
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to
> > > >> > deserialize
> > > >> > > > int
> > > >> > > > > as
> > > >> > > > > > >> uint
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > when
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > you
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > have
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > class,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24,
> > 2020
> > > >> at
> > > >> > > 12:28
> > > >> > > > > PM
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Andrey
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Mashenkov <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > [hidden email]
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point.
> Both
> > > >> > > > serializers
> > > >> > > > > > use
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > reflection
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we
> will
> > > >> allow
> > > >> > > > users
> > > >> > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > configure
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > static
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > schema
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > along
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode,
> we
> > > >> still
> > > >> > > need
> > > >> > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> validate
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > user
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > classes
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > on
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > client
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest
> > schema
> > > in
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > grid
> > > >> > > > > > >> and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > reflection
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a
> > few
> > > >> > > articles
> > > >> > > > > on
> > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > internet
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > on
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > how
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a
> > task
> > > >> for
> > > >> > > > > > supporting
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > GraalVM,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > maybe
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with
> > > >> GraalVM
> > > >> > > will
> > > >> > > > > > >> suggest a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > solution
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > or
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proper
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a
> bit
> > > >> later.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no
> workaround
> > > is
> > > >> > > found,
> > > >> > > > we
> > > >> > > > > > >> could
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > allow
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > users
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > write
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > own
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer,
> but
> > I
> > > >> don't
> > > >> > > > think
> > > >> > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > good
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > idea
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > expose
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the
> > > >> public.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov
> 24,
> > > >> 2020 at
> > > >> > > > 2:55
> > > >> > > > > AM
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Denis
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Magda <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> thanks
> > > for
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > > > update,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of
> > the
> > > >> > > > serializers
> > > >> > > > > > >> take
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> into
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > consideration
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > native-image-generation
> > > >> > > > > > >> feature of
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > GraalVM?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the
> > current
> > > >> > binary
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> marshaller,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > we
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > can't
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > even
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > generate
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code
> > > using
> > > >> > our
> > > >> > > > thin
> > > >> > > > > > >> client
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > APIs.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov
> > 23,
> > > >> 2020
> > > >> > at
> > > >> > > > > 4:39
> > > >> > > > > > AM
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Andrey
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > [hidden email]
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi
> Igniters,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like
> to
> > > >> > continue
> > > >> > > > > > >> discussion
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> of
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > IEP-54
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope
> > everyone
> > > >> who
> > > >> > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> interested
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > had a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > chance
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > get
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal
> > [1].
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do
> > not
> > > >> > > hesitate
> > > >> > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> ask
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > questions
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > share
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > prepared
> > > a
> > > >> > > > prototype
> > > >> > > > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > serializer
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > [2]
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > data
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the
> > > proposal.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> prototy,
> > I
> > > >> > > compared
> > > >> > > > 2
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> approaches
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > (de)serialize
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java
> > > >> > > > > reflection/unsafe
> > > >> > > > > > >> API
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > similar
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > one
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the
> > second
> > > >> one
> > > >> > > > > > generates
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > serializer
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > particular
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino
> > library
> > > >> for
> > > >> > > > > > >> compilation.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one
> > > shows
> > > >> > > better
> > > >> > > > > > >> results
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > benchmarks.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we
> > can
> > > >> go
> > > >> > > with
> > > >> > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > as
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > default
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > serializer
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> reflection-based
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > implementation
> > > >> as a
> > > >> > > > > > fallback
> > > >> > > > > > >> if
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > someone
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > issues
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are
> a
> > > >> number
> > > >> > of
> > > >> > > > > tasks
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> under
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > umbrella
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ticket
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm
> > going
> > > >> to
> > > >> > > > create
> > > >> > > > > > more
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > tickets
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > schema
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > manager
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > implementation,
> > > >> but
> > > >> > > > would
> > > >> > > > > > >> like
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > clarify
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > some
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > details.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought
> > > >> > > schemaManager
> > > >> > > > > on
> > > >> > > > > > >> each
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > node
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > should
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > held:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1. Local
> > > >> mapping
> > > >> > of
> > > >> > > > > > "schema
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > version"
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > <-->
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > validated
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes
> > pair.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2.
> > > >> Cluster-wide
> > > >> > > > schema
> > > >> > > > > > >> changes
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > history.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the
> > client
> > > >> side.
> > > >> > > > > Before
> > > >> > > > > > >> any
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > key-value
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > operation
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> for a
> > > >> given
> > > >> > > > > > key-value
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> pair.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there
> is
> > no
> > > >> > > > > > local-mapping
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> exists
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > given
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster
> wide
> > > >> schema
> > > >> > > > has a
> > > >> > > > > > >> more
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > recent
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > version
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be
> > > >> validated
> > > >> > > > > against
> > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > latest
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > version
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> updated/actualized.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an
> object
> > > >> > doesn't
> > > >> > > > fit
> > > >> > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > latest
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > schema
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > depends
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode:
> either
> > > >> fail
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> operation
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > ('strict'
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > mode)
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > or
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created
> and
> > a
> > > >> new
> > > >> > > > schema
> > > >> > > > > > >> version
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > should
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > propagated
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the
> > server
> > > >> side
> > > >> > we
> > > >> > > > > > usually
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> have
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > no
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > key-value
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > classes
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema
> > > change
> > > >> > > > history
> > > >> > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > available
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > tuple
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > has
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is
> > possible
> > > >> to
> > > >> > > > upgrade
> > > >> > > > > > any
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > received
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > tuple
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > last
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > desialization.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we
> > could
> > > >> allow
> > > >> > > > nodes
> > > >> > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> send
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > key-value
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > pairs
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they
> didn't
> > > >> > receive a
> > > >> > > > > > schema
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> update
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > yet)
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > without
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > reverting
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a
> > node
> > > >> with
> > > >> > > > newer
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> classes.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val,
> > > Ivan
> > > >> did
> > > >> > > you
> > > >> > > > > > mean
> > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > same?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > >
> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu,
> Sep
> > > 17,
> > > >> > 2020
> > > >> > > at
> > > >> > > > > > 9:21
> > > >> > > > > > >> AM
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Ivan
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> do
> > > not
> > > >> > > ignore
> > > >> > > > > > >> history.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> We
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > had
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > thread
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> We
> > > can
> > > >> > > resume
> > > >> > > > > it.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> 2020-09-10
> > > >> 0:08
> > > >> > > > > > GMT+03:00,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Denis
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Magda
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val,
> > makes
> > > >> > sense,
> > > >> > > > > > thanks
> > > >> > > > > > >> for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > explaining.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree
> > that
> > > >> we
> > > >> > > need
> > > >> > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> have a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > separate
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> "cache"
> > > >> terms
> > > >> > > > > > >> substitution.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > I'll
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > appreciate
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > if
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> sharing
> > > >> > pointers
> > > >> > > to
> > > >> > > > > any
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > relevant
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > IEPs
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > reasoning
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> change.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On
> Tue,
> > > Sep
> > > >> 8,
> > > >> > > 2020
> > > >> > > > > at
> > > >> > > > > > >> 6:01
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> PM
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Valentin
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> [hidden email]>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi
> > Denis,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I
> guess
> > > the
> > > >> > > > wording
> > > >> > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> IEP
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > little
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > bit
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that
> > you
> > > >> > should
> > > >> > > > not
> > > >> > > > > > >> create
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > nested
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > POJOs,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > but
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> single
> > > POJO
> > > >> > that
> > > >> > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> mapped
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > particular
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs
> > are
> > > >> not
> > > >> > > > > > supported.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex,
> > is
> > > >> this
> > > >> > > > > correct?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Please
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > let
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > me
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > know
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > if
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As
> for
> > > the
> > > >> > > "cache"
> > > >> > > > > > >> term, I
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > agree
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > that
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what
> we
> > > can
> > > >> > > > replace
> > > >> > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> with.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > "Table"
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > tightly
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL
> is
> > > >> > optional
> > > >> > > in
> > > >> > > > > our
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> case.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Do
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > you
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > want
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > create a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about
> > > this?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On
> Tue,
> > > >> Sep 8,
> > > >> > > > 2020
> > > >> > > > > at
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> 4:37 PM
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Denis
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've
> > > >> checked
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > > > IEP
> > > >> > > > > > >> again
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > have a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > few
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > questions.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > Arbitrary
> > > >> > > nested
> > > >> > > > > > >> objects
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > collections
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > are
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > values.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > Nested
> > > >> > POJOs
> > > >> > > > > should
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> either
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > inlined
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > into
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> Could
> > > you
> > > >> > > > provide a
> > > >> > > > > > DDL
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> code
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > snippet
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > showing
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > supposed
> > > >> to
> > > >> > > work?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> Also,
> > we
> > > >> keep
> > > >> > > > using
> > > >> > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> terms
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > "cache"
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > right
> > > >> > time
> > > >> > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> discuss
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> an
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > alternate
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > name
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> Personally,
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > > > "table"
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > should
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > stay
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> considering
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > SQL
> > > >> is
> > > >> > one
> > > >> > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > primary
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > APIs
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > out-of-the-box.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> Denis
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On
> > Mon,
> > > >> Sep
> > > >> > 7,
> > > >> > > > 2020
> > > >> > > > > > at
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> 12:26
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > PM
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > [hidden email]>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > Ivan,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I
> > see
> > > >> your
> > > >> > > > > point. I
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> agree
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > that
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > automatic
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> schema-last
> > > >> > > > > > >> territory.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> Actually,
> > > >> > if
> > > >> > > we
> > > >> > > > > > >> support
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > automatic
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > evolution,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> creating a
> > > >> > > > cache
> > > >> > > > > > >> without
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > schema
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > inferring
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > insert.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > other
> > > >> > words,
> > > >> > > we
> > > >> > > > > can
> > > >> > > > > > >> have
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > both
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > Alexey,
> > > >> > what
> > > >> > > do
> > > >> > > > > you
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> think?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> -Val
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On
> > > Mon,
> > > >> Sep
> > > >> > > 7,
> > > >> > > > > 2020
> > > >> > > > > > >> at
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> 5:59
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > AM
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Alexey
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> [hidden email]
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > Ivan,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > Thank
> > > >> > you,
> > > >> > > I
> > > >> > > > > got
> > > >> > > > > > >> your
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > concern
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > now.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > As
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> > > terminology,
> > > >> > > > I
> > > >> > > > > am
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > absolutely
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > fine
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > the
> > > >> > > approach
> > > >> > > > > > best.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Dynamic
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > or
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > evolving
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> > > corresponding
> > > >> > > > > > >> changes
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > IEP
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > once
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > we
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > settle
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > пн,
> > > 7
> > > >> > сент.
> > > >> > > > > 2020
> > > >> > > > > > >> г. в
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 11:33,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Ivan
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> [hidden email]
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > Hi
> > > >> Val,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> Thank
> > > >> > you
> > > >> > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> your
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > answer!
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > My
> > > >> > > > > > understanding
> > > >> > > > > > >> is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > little
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > bit
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > different.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > > definitely
> > > >> > > > > > >> should be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > possible.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > But
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > see
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > main
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> schema
> > > >> > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> updated".
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> I
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > treat a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > common
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> schema-first.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> Schema
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > and
> > > >> > data
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> manipulation
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > operations
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > are
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > clearly
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > enables
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > > interesting
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > capabilities,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > e.g.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > preventing
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > by
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > mistaken
> > > >> > > > data
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > operations,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > restricting
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> schema.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >
> > > >> > > > > Schema-first
> > > >> > > > > > >> means
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > that
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > schema
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > exists
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> stored
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > data
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > is
> > > >> > > > compliant
> > > >> > > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> it -
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > that's
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > exactly
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > A
> > > >> > > > schema-last
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> approach
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > mentioned
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > also
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> exists,
> > > >> > > but
> > > >> > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > inferred
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > from
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > data.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > proposing
> > > >> > > > > > >> approach?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > And
> > > >> I
> > > >> > > would
> > > >> > > > > > like
> > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > say,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > that
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > my
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > main
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> about
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > > > terminology.
> > > >> > > > > > And
> > > >> > > > > > >> I
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > suppose
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > if
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > confuses
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > confused
> > > >> > > as
> > > >> > > > > > >> well. My
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > feeling
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > closer
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > may
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > evolving
> > > >> > > > > > schema".
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > [1]
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >>
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > > 2020-09-07
> > > >> > > > > 0:47
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > GMT+03:00,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >
> > > Hi
> > > >> > > Ivan,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >
> > > I
> > > >> > don't
> > > >> > > > see
> > > >> > > > > > an
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> issue
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > that.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> exists
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >
> > > >> > advance
> > > >> > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > all
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > stored
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > data
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > compliant
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > exactly
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > what
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >
> > > is
> > > >> > > > > proposed.
> > > >> > > > > > >> There
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > are
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > no
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > restrictions
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> schema.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >
> > > >> -Val
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >
> > > On
> > > >> > Sat,
> > > >> > > > Sep
> > > >> > > > > > 5,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> 2020
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > at
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > 9:52
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > PM
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ivan
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > > Alexey,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> I
> > > >> > am a
> > > >> > > > > > little
> > > >> > > > > > >> bit
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > confused
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > understanding
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > conforms
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> to a
> > > >> > > > > survey
> > > >> > > > > > >> [1]
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> (see
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > part
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > X
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Semi
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Structured
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > really
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > treat
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> a
> > > >> > > > "dynamic
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> schema"
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > approach
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > as a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > kind
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> [1]
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >>
> > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > > > 2020-09-02
> > > >> > > > > > >> 1:53
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > GMT+03:00,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Denis
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > [hidden email]
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > However,
> > > >> > > > > > >> could
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > please
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > ORM?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > Is
> > > >> > > > > there
> > > >> > > > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > >> use
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > case
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > (I
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> haven't
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > seen
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > one
> > > >> > > > so
> > > >> > > > > > >> far)?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> If
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > so,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > what
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side
> > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > > support
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > this?
> > > >> > > > > In
> > > >> > > > > > my
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > already
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > have.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > Am
> > > >> > > I
> > > >> > > > > > >> missing
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > something?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Good
> > > >> > > > > > point,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> yes,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > if
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > all
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > ORM
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > internally,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> then
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > they
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > can
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > easily
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > translate
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> INSERT/UPDATE
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > statement
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > that
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > lists
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > Luckily,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > our
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Spring
> > > >> > > > > > Data
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > integration
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > already
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > based
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > APIs
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > needs
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > to
> > > >> > > be
> > > >> > > > > > >> improved
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > once
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > would
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > solve
> > > >> > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > ton
> > > >> > > > > > >> of
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > usability
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > issues.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > I
> > > >> > > > would
> > > >> > > > > > >> revise
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Hibernate
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > 3.0
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> dev
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > phase.
> > > >> > > > > > Can't
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> say
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > if
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > it's
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > used
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > lot
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > > getting
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > traction
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > sure.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > > @Michael
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Pollind,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > I'll
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > loop
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > you
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > long
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > working
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > on
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > >> support
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Micornaut
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Data
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > >
> > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/
> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > came
> > > >> > > > > > across
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> some
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > challenges.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Just
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > watch
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > That's
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> what
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > coming
> > > >> > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 3.0.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > -
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Denis
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > On
> > > >> > > > Mon,
> > > >> > > > > > Aug
> > > >> > > > > > >> 31,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > 2020
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > at
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > 5:11
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > Hi
> > > >> > > > > Denis,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > Generally
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > speaking, I
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > believe
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> natively
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > addresses
> > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > issue
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > if
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > duplicate
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > objects,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > > because
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > schema
> > > >> > > > > > >> will be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > created
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > cache,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> happens
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> now.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > Basically,
> > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > schema
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > define
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > whether
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > not,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > and
> > > >> > > > > which
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> fields
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > are
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > included
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > would
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > have
> > > >> > > > > must
> > > >> > > > > > >> be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > compliant
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > this,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> work
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > data
> > > >> > > > as
> > > >> > > > > > >> with a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > set
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > of
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > records,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > However,
> > > >> > > > > > >> could
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > please
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > ORM?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > Is
> > > >> > > > > there
> > > >> > > > > > a
> > > >> > > > > > >> use
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > case
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > (I
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> haven't
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > seen
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > one
> > > >> > > > so
> > > >> > > > > > >> far)?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> If
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > so,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > what
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side
> > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > > support
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > this?
> > > >> > > > > In
> > > >> > > > > > my
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > already
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > have.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > Am
> > > >> > > I
> > > >> > > > > > >> missing
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > something?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > -Val
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > On
> > > >> > > > Mon,
> > > >> > > > > > Aug
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> 31,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 2020
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > at
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > 2:08
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > [hidden email]>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > Val,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > I
> > > >> > > > > would
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> propose
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > adding
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > another
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > point
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > list
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > which
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > related
> > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > ORM
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > frameworks
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > Hibernate,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > > > Micronaut
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > many
> > > >> > > > > > >> others.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> Presently,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > storage
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > engine
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requires
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > objects
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > from
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > value
> > > >> > > > > > >> ones
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> that
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > complicate
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> frameworks
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> (especially
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> if
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > key
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > object
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > comprises
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > More
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > this
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> can
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > found
> > > >> > > > > > >> here:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > It
> > > >> > > > > will
> > > >> > > > > > >> be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> nice
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > if
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > new
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > work
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> with
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > single
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> entity
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > object
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > when
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > it
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > comes
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need
> > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > split
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > entity
> > > >> > > > > > >> into
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > key
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > value.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Just
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > 3.0
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > has
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > all
> > > >> > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > essential
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > public
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > APIs
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> > > single-entity
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > based
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > approach.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > What
> > > >> > > > > do
> > > >> > > > > > >> you
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > think?
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > -
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > Denis
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > On
> > > >> > > > > Fri,
> > > >> > > > > > >> Aug
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> 28,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > 2020
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > at
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > 3:50
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > PM
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> Igniters,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > One
> > > >> > > > > > of
> > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > big
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > changes
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proposed
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> so-called
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> "schema-first
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > approach".
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > To
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > add
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > started
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> writing
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > the
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > IEP
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > for
> > > >> > > > > > >> this
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > change:
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > Please
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> take a
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > look
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > let
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > me
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > immediate
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> thoughts,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> suggestions,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > or
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > objections.
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > -Val
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> Best
> > > >> > > > > > regards,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> Ivan
> > > >> > > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > --
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > Best
> > > >> > > > regards,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > Ivan
> > > >> > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best
> > > regards,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan
> > > Pavlukhin
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best
> > regards,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V.
> > > >> Mashenkov
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V.
> > > Mashenkov
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > --
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Best regards,
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > >> > > > > > >> >
> > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > >> > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > --
> > > >> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > >> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > --
> > > >> > > > Best regards,
> > > >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > --
> > > >> > Best regards,
> > > >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrey V. Mashenkov
>

[Andrew Mashenkov]

>
> I never said that you can predict string size.

You suggest to use offsets use 1-2-4 bytes based on overall varlen section
size.
Actually, we can't predict varlen section size if a string column defined
before serializing strings.

Do you suggest use the smallest possible offset size if no columns of
string type are defined,
but fallback to 4-byte if a string column goes into play?

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 6:59 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hello!
>
> I never said that you can predict string size. Strings are definitely
> varlen. You don't know string length when looking at object schema, I don't
> even see why char-to-byte mapping is relevant here.
>
> What do you think about the approach where offsets use 1-2-4 bytes based on
> overall varlen section size, which is known in advance as I assume?
>
> With compression, some optimizations may be possible since you can compress
> blocks of data and then concatenate these compressed fragments. So you can
> say that "I want 40-th byte of 3rd fragment" but it sounds like an overkill
> mostly.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Ilya Kasnacheev
>
>
> чт, 20 мая 2021 г. в 18:23, Andrey Mashenkov <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Hi Ilya,
> >
> > Not yet, we can't predict string size [1] as a character may be encoded
> in
> > 1-4 bytes.
> > So, we could either use a heuristic or serialize every string into an
> array
> > at first then assemble a row and copy the array into the row buffer.
> >
> > Good point, we can skip vartable for the first varlen field.
> > We have a similar ticket [2] for the case with a single varlen. I'll fix
> > the description to omit a first varlen offset.
> >
> > Agree, compression looks tricky and ineffective in this case.
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4385623/bytes-of-a-string-in-java/4385653
> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14746
> >
> > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 5:58 PM Ilya Kasnacheev <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello!
> > >
> > > How about:
> > >
> > > First, all fields for which we know their specific order and size go,
> > such
> > > as byte, short, int, long, boolean. This means that any short field
> will
> > > take just 2 bytes with no padding.
> > > Then, all var-len fields go, such as nested object, strings, etc.
> > >
> > > After that, we know total object size already, right?
> > > If size <= 256, then all offsets are 1 byte unsigned.
> > > If size < 65k, then all offsets are 2 byte.
> > > Else, all offsets are 4 byte.
> > >
> > > We can count offsets starting from the first byle after constant fields
> > > section and offsets section.
> > > For the first varlen field, the offset is always 0, so we may skip this
> > one
> > > and start with offset of the second var field.
> > >
> > > For compression it is trickier. I suggest not having any explicit
> support
> > > for compression right here, so that later on compression may use a
> > > different object layout to be more efficient.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > --
> > > Ilya Kasnacheev
> > >
> > >
> > > ср, 19 мая 2021 г. в 16:43, Andrey Mashenkov <
> [hidden email]
> > >:
> > >
> > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > >
> > > > I've create a ticket [1] for large row support.
> > > >
> > > > We use 2-bytes offsets for varlen fields that are supposed to be
> large
> > > > enough.
> > > > AFAIK, some users use multi-MB values and 64k per Row looks like a
> > strong
> > > > limitation.
> > > >
> > > > So, we have either to increase offset_size up to 4-bytes or use some
> > > > advanced mechanics for compression or adaptive offset_size.
> > > >
> > > > 1. Increasing offset size may add overhead for keys like next:
> > > > class Key {
> > > >    int id;
> > > >    String str; // Some short string code.
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > 2. Compression will require table to be decompressed on every varlen
> > > column
> > > > access, e.g. for comparison purposes while index scan.
> > > > Also, we may need to pre-calculate compressed table size to avoid
> > buffer
> > > > copying (shrinking or extending) during row assembling.
> > > >
> > > > 3. Adaptive offset_size implies row size estimation.
> > > > We already do to reduce the probability of buffer expanding, but we
> > need
> > > a
> > > > high margin for this purpose.
> > > > 'String' values size is a hard part as String character may be
> encoded
> > > into
> > > > 1-4 bytes depending on Charset.
> > > >
> > > > Usually, a user don't want to care about Column length limitation and
> > > chars
> > > > collation.
> > > > So, we can expect a Java default behavior will be used in most cases:
> > > > 'unlimited' string size with up to 4-bytes characters support.
> > > >
> > > > Possible strategies
> > > > 3.1 Introduce 'Collation' for string and validate all the chars on
> row
> > > > assembling and rely on the user limited column length.
> > > > Thus, we can use varlen limits (+ collation for strings) to estimate
> > row
> > > > size and pre-calculate offset_size to keep it within the schema.
> > > > 3.2 Introduce more row flags for different offset sizes (byte, short,
> > > int)
> > > > and calculate row size right before assembling for choosing
> appropriate
> > > > offset_size.
> > > > Heuristics for strings using collation is also applicable here and
> keep
> > > > algorithm complexity independent from the data length, but the schema
> > > only.
> > > >
> > > > I like an approach '3.2' because we already estimate row size.
> > > > Any thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14743
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 7:25 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Igniters,
> > > > > I've prepared PR [1] with Public Table API for final review.
> > > > >
> > > > > Main points
> > > > > There are 4 projection interfaces over Table for different
> use-cases
> > > > > (Plain record vs Key-Value and POJO vs Binary object) declaring
> > > > synchronous
> > > > > and asynchronous methods.
> > > > > Async method returns IgniteFuture as there is no consensus on
> > > > IgniteFuture
> > > > > vs JDK CompletableFuture yet.
> > > > > API implementation is incomplete, it just an example of how it
> could
> > be
> > > > > done and will be implemented in future tasks.
> > > > > Tuple/TupleAssembler renamed to Row/RowAssembler. Now Tuple is
> just a
> > > > > dictionary representing a subset of columns, while Row is a
> > > schema-aware
> > > > > object containing key and value columns respectively to the data
> > > layout.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:26 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> I see, thanks.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Let's discuss the return type - Future is not the one to use.
> > > > >> We should return CompletionStage, CompletableFuture, or introduce
> > our
> > > > own
> > > > >> interface.
> > > > >> We agreed on the last one (custom interface) for thin clients:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/IEP-51-Java-Thin-Client-Async-API-td48900.html
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I believe that for Ignite 3.0 we should have the following:
> > > > >> public interface IgniteFuture<T> extends Future<T>,
> > > CompletionStage<T> {
> > > > >>     // No-op.
> > > > >> }
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thoughts?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:16 AM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > >> [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Pavel,
> > > > >> > There are 2 PR's for the ticket[1] with two different APIs
> > > suggested.
> > > > >> > Please, take a look at PR [2].
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14035
> > > > >> > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/69
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:11 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > Andrey, I can't find any async methods,
> > > > >> > > can you please check if the changes are pushed?
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 10:06 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > >> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > Pavel, good point.
> > > > >> > > > Thanks. I've added async methods.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 2:29 PM Pavel Tupitsyn <
> > > > >> [hidden email]>
> > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > Andrey,
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > What about corresponding async APIs, do we add them now or
> > > > later?
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 8:11 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > >> > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > Hi Igniters.
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > I've created a PR for Table access API [1].
> > > > >> > > > > > This is an initial version. So, any
> suggestions\objections
> > > are
> > > > >> > > > welcomed.
> > > > >> > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to write your comments and\or
> > > examples
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > > PR.
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > Ignite-api module contains API classes, e.g. TableView
> > > classes
> > > > >> as
> > > > >> > > > > > projections for a table for different purposes.
> > > > >> > > > > > Ignite-table contains dummy implementation and Example
> > class
> > > > >> > > explained
> > > > >> > > > > how
> > > > >> > > > > > it is supposed to be used.
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > Also, I'm still waiting for any feedback for Schema
> > > > >> configuration
> > > > >> > > > public
> > > > >> > > > > > API PR [2].
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/33
> > > > >> > > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:05 PM Andrey Mashenkov <
> > > > >> > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > I've updated a PR regarding your feedback [1].
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/ignite-3/pull/2
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 10:58 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > >> > > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> Folks,
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> I updated the IEP to contain the missing pieces;
> > > actually,
> > > > >> most
> > > > >> > of
> > > > >> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> questions here were covered by the text. Please let
> me
> > > know
> > > > >> if
> > > > >> > > there
> > > > >> > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> something still missing or unclear.
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> чт, 31 дек. 2020 г. в 12:48, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > > >> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >:
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> > Mikhail and Igniters,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> > Thanks for your comments. The questions are
> > reasonable,
> > > > >> > though I
> > > > >> > > > > think
> > > > >> > > > > > >> all
> > > > >> > > > > > >> > concerns are addressed by the IEP as Val
> mentioned. I
> > > > will
> > > > >> > > update
> > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> > document according to your questions in the
> following
> > > > week
> > > > >> or
> > > > >> > > so,
> > > > >> > > > so
> > > > >> > > > > > we
> > > > >> > > > > > >> can
> > > > >> > > > > > >> > have a constructive discussion further.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> > ср, 30 дек. 2020 г. в 11:45, Michael Cherkasov <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> > [hidden email]>:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Hi Val, Andrey,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> thank you for clarifying.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> I still have a few comments.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 1. one table == one schema. KV vs SQL:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Looks like all agreed that KV is just a special
> case
> > > of
> > > > a
> > > > >> > > regular
> > > > >> > > > > > table
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> with (blob,blob) schema.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> I worry about the case when the user starts from
> KV
> > > case
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> > > > later
> > > > >> > > > > > will
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> try
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to expand it and try to leverage SQL for the
> > existing
> > > KV
> > > > >> > table
> > > > >> > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> won't be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> able to do so and will require to reload data.
> which
> > > > isn't
> > > > >> > > > > convenient
> > > > >> > > > > > >> and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> sometimes not even possible. Is it possible to
> > > extract a
> > > > >> new
> > > > >> > > > field
> > > > >> > > > > > from
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> (blob, blob) schema and apply index on it?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 2. Could you please also list all ways of schema
> > > > >> definition
> > > > >> > in
> > > > >> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> IEP? It
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> significant change and I bet the main point of
> this
> > > IEP,
> > > > >> > > everyone
> > > > >> > > > > > hates
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> QueryEntities, they are difficult to manage and in
> > > > >> general,
> > > > >> > > it's
> > > > >> > > > > very
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> confusing to have a data model(schemas) and
> > > node/cluster
> > > > >> > > > > > configuration
> > > > >> > > > > > >> in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> one place.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> So there will be SchemaBuilder and SQL to define
> > > > schemas,
> > > > >> but
> > > > >> > > > > Andrey
> > > > >> > > > > > >> also
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> mentioned annotations.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> I personally against configuration via
> annotations,
> > > > while
> > > > >> > it's
> > > > >> > > > > > >> convenient
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> for development, it difficult to manage because
> > > > different
> > > > >> > > classes
> > > > >> > > > > can
> > > > >> > > > > > >> be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> deployed on different clients/servers nodes and it
> > can
> > > > >> lead
> > > > >> > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> unpredictable results.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 3. IEP doesn't mention field type changes, only
> > > drop/add
> > > > >> > > fields.
> > > > >> > > > > > Field
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> type
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> changes are extremely painful right now(if even
> > > > >> possible), so
> > > > >> > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > would
> > > > >> > > > > > >> be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> nice if some scenarios would be supported(like
> > > > >> int8->int16,
> > > > >> > or
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> int8->String).
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 4. got it, I thought IEP will have more details
> > about
> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> implementation.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> I've seen Andrey even sent benchmark results for a
> > new
> > > > >> > > > > serialization,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> will
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> ping him about this.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 5. Thanks for the clarification. I had a wrong
> > > > >> understanding
> > > > >> > of
> > > > >> > > > > > strick
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> mode.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> вт, 29 дек. 2020 г. в 19:32, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> [hidden email]>:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Hi Mike,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Thanks for providing your feedback. Please see
> my
> > > > >> comments
> > > > >> > > > below.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > I would also encourage you to go through the
> > IEP-54
> > > > [1]
> > > > >> -
> > > > >> > it
> > > > >> > > > has
> > > > >> > > > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> lot
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> of
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > detail on the topic.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > [1]
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > -Val
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 11:22 PM Michael
> > Cherkasov <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Hi all,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > I reviewed the mail thread and proposal page
> > and I
> > > > >> still
> > > > >> > > > don't
> > > > >> > > > > > >> fully
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > understand what is going to be changed, I
> would
> > > > really
> > > > >> > > > > appreciate
> > > > >> > > > > > >> it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> if
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > will answer a few questions:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 1. Are you going to leave only one schema per
> > > cache?
> > > > >> if
> > > > >> > so,
> > > > >> > > > > will
> > > > >> > > > > > be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> there
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > an option to have a table with arbitrary
> > > > objects(pure
> > > > >> KV
> > > > >> > > > case)?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > My opinion is that KV case should be natively
> > > > >> supported. I
> > > > >> > > > think
> > > > >> > > > > > this
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> still
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > needs to be thought over, my current view on
> this
> > is
> > > > >> that
> > > > >> > we
> > > > >> > > > > should
> > > > >> > > > > > >> have
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > separate APIs for KV and more generic storages.
> KV
> > > > >> storage
> > > > >> > > can
> > > > >> > > > be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > implemented as a "table" with two BLOB fields
> > where
> > > we
> > > > >> will
> > > > >> > > > store
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > serialized key-value pairs. That would imply
> > > > >> > deserialization
> > > > >> > > on
> > > > >> > > > > > read,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> but I
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > believe this is OK for KV use cases. I'm happy
> to
> > > hear
> > > > >> > other
> > > > >> > > > > ideas
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> though
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > :)
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0 have to
> > > > define
> > > > >> > > schema?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > SchemaBuilder
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > and SQL only? Is there an option to put the
> > schema
> > > > >> > > definition
> > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > configuration?(I really don't like this, I
> would
> > > > >> prefer
> > > > >> > to
> > > > >> > > > have
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > separate scripts to create schemas)
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > There will be no such thing as a static
> > > configuration
> > > > in
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > > > first
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> place.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Tables and schemas are created in runtime. Even
> if
> > > > there
> > > > >> > is a
> > > > >> > > > > file
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> provided
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > on node startup, this file is only applied in
> the
> > > > scope
> > > > >> of
> > > > >> > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> 'start'
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > operation. All configurations will be stored in
> a
> > > meta
> > > > >> > > storage
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> available to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > all nodes, as opposed to individual files.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 3. Is there a way to change field type? if
> yes,
> > > can
> > > > >> it be
> > > > >> > > > done
> > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > runtime?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Absolutely! IEP-54 has a whole section about
> > schema
> > > > >> > > evolution.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going to be
> > > > >> re-worked
> > > > >> > > too,
> > > > >> > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> there
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> any
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > IEP for this?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > BinaryMarshaller as a tool for arbitrary object
> > > > >> > serialization
> > > > >> > > > > will
> > > > >> > > > > > be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> gone,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > but we will reuse a lot of its concept to
> > implement
> > > an
> > > > >> > > internal
> > > > >> > > > > > tuple
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > serialization mechanism. IEP-54 has the
> > description
> > > of
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > > proposed
> > > > >> > > > > > >> data
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > format.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 5. I don't like automatic schema evaluation
> > when a
> > > > new
> > > > >> > > field
> > > > >> > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> added
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > automatically on record put, so is there a way
> > to
> > > > >> > prohibit
> > > > >> > > > this
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> behavior?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >  I think all schema changes should be done
> only
> > > > >> > explicitly
> > > > >> > > > > except
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> initial
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > schema creation.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > The way I see it is that we should have two
> modes:
> > > > >> > > schema-first
> > > > >> > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > schema-last. Schema-first means exactly what
> > you've
> > > > >> > > described -
> > > > >> > > > > > >> schemas
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> are
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > defined and updated explicitly by the user. In
> the
> > > > >> > > schema-last
> > > > >> > > > > > mode,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > the user does not deal with schemas, as they are
> > > > >> inferred
> > > > >> > > from
> > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> data
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > inserted into tables. We should definitely not
> mix
> > > > these
> > > > >> > > modes
> > > > >> > > > -
> > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> has
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > be one or another. And it probably makes sense
> to
> > > > >> discuss
> > > > >> > > which
> > > > >> > > > > > mode
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> should
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > be the default one.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Thanks,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Mike.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey Mashenkov
> <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > [hidden email]
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Hi, Igniters.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > We all know that the current QueryEntity API
> > is
> > > > not
> > > > >> > > > > convenient
> > > > >> > > > > > >> and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > needs
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > be reworked.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema
> > > > >> configuration
> > > > >> > > > public
> > > > >> > > > > > API
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Ignite 3.0.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > New schema configuration uses Builder
> pattern,
> > > > which
> > > > >> > > looks
> > > > >> > > > > more
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > comfortable
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > to use.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > >> API
> > > > >> > > > > itself,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > draft
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > implementation in 'internal' sub-package,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and a test that demonstrates how the API
> could
> > > be
> > > > >> used.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Please note:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with
> > > static
> > > > >> > > factory
> > > > >> > > > > > >> methods.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * The implementation is decoupled and can be
> > > > easily
> > > > >> > > > extracted
> > > > >> > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > separate
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > module if we decide to do so.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are
> > > missed,
> > > > >> they
> > > > >> > > will
> > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> added
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > lately
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > in separate tickes.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Index configuration extends marker
> interface
> > > > that
> > > > >> > makes
> > > > >> > > > > > >> possible
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > implement indexes of new types in plugins.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Hopfully, we could add a persistent
> > geo-indices
> > > > >> support
> > > > >> > > in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> future.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Supposedly, current table schema can be
> > > changed
> > > > >> via
> > > > >> > > > > > >> builder-like
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 'TableModificationBuilder'
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > details.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have
> > > > 'toBuilder()'
> > > > >> > > > > converter
> > > > >> > > > > > >> for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> that
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > purpose as it is a Schema Manager
> > responsibility
> > > > to
> > > > >> > > create
> > > > >> > > > > > >> mutator
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > objects
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > from the current schema,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > but implementing the Schema manager is out
> of
> > > > scope
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> > > > will
> > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > designed
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > within the next task.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > * Interfaces implementations are out of
> > scope. I
> > > > did
> > > > >> > not
> > > > >> > > > > intend
> > > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > merge
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > them right now, but for test/demostration
> > > > purposes.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > It is NOT the final version and some may be
> > > > changed
> > > > >> > > before
> > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> first
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > release of course.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed
> > with
> > > > >> this
> > > > >> > > > > approach
> > > > >> > > > > > or
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> some
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > issues should be resolved at first.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Any thoughts or objections?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Are interfaces good enough to be merged
> within
> > > the
> > > > >> > > current
> > > > >> > > > > > >> ticket?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> [hidden email]>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned
> > types:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 2. It requires adding new types to the
> > > internal
> > > > >> > > > > > representation,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > protocol,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > e.t.c.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 3. internal representation should be the
> > same
> > > as
> > > > >> we
> > > > >> > > keep
> > > > >> > > > > sign
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> types.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > So
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > will not requires more memory
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such
> > > types
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> > > > > platforms
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> which
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > not
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > support unsigned types. For example, a
> user
> > > > could
> > > > >> > > derive
> > > > >> > > > -6
> > > > >> > > > > > >> value
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits
> > > > perspective
> > > > >> > will
> > > > >> > > > be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> right). I
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > think
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such
> > > cases,
> > > > >> > > > especially
> > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> will be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > bad
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for unsigned long when we require returns
> > > > >> BigInteger
> > > > >> > > > type.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 5. Possible it requires some
> suffix/preffix
> > > for
> > > > >> new
> > > > >> > > types
> > > > >> > > > > > like
> > > > >> > > > > > >> a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > '250u' -
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value
> type.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive
> > > > >> comparison
> > > > >> > > > logic
> > > > >> > > > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > indexes
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for
> > > > >> expressions.
> > > > >> > I
> > > > >> > > > > think
> > > > >> > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> not
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > possible for the current H2 engine and
> > > probably
> > > > >> > > possible
> > > > >> > > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> new
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from
> > > anybody
> > > > >> who
> > > > >> > > > > involved
> > > > >> > > > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> this
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > part
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > WDYT?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey
> > > Goncharuk <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in
> > 3.0:
> > > > >> once
> > > > >> > we
> > > > >> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> actual
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > type
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > information, we can make proper runtime
> > > > >> adjustments
> > > > >> > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> conversions
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will
> > be
> > > > >> just a
> > > > >> > > bit
> > > > >> > > > > more
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > expensive.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel
> > > Tupitsyn <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> [hidden email]
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > SQL range queries it will break
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality
> > comparisons
> > > > >> and so
> > > > >> > > on
> > > > >> > > > > are
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> broken
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I
> > > mentioned
> > > > >> this
> > > > >> > > > > > somewhere
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > above.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document
> > that
> > > > >> SQL is
> > > > >> > > not
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> supported
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > those
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > types,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > end of story.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey
> > > > >> Goncharuk
> > > > >> > <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable
> > > > >> request. I
> > > > >> > > > > thought
> > > > >> > > > > > >> about
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > this
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > when
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > I
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated
> to
> > > add
> > > > >> > these
> > > > >> > > > > types
> > > > >> > > > > > >> right
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > away.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite
> since
> > > the
> > > > >> > > > beginning
> > > > >> > > > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> .NET
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > C++
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > :)
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually
> > > works
> > > > as
> > > > >> > > > > expected,
> > > > >> > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> needs
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > some
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > checking (will be glad if my
> concerns
> > > are
> > > > >> > false):
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - It's true that equality check
> > works
> > > > >> > > properly,
> > > > >> > > > > but
> > > > >> > > > > > >> for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> SQL
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > range
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    queries it will break unless some
> > > > special
> > > > >> > care
> > > > >> > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> taken
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > side:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    u8 255 > 10, but in Java
> (byte)255
> > > will
> > > > >> be
> > > > >> > > > > converted
> > > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> -1,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > which
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    break the comparison. Since we
> > don't
> > > > have
> > > > >> > > > unsigned
> > > > >> > > > > > >> types
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > now,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > I
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > doubt
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    works.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    - There is an obvious
> > cross-platform
> > > > data
> > > > >> > loss
> > > > >> > > > > when
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > "intuitive"
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > type
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    mapping is used by a user (u8
> > > > >> corresponds to
> > > > >> > > > byte
> > > > >> > > > > > >> type in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > .NET,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > but
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    avoid values loss, a user will
> have
> > > to
> > > > >> use
> > > > >> > > short
> > > > >> > > > > > type
> > > > >> > > > > > >> in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Java,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    will also need to take care of
> the
> > > > range
> > > > >> > check
> > > > >> > > > > > during
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > serialization).
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > I
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    think we can even allow to try to
> > > > >> > deserialize
> > > > >> > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > value
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> into
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > arbitrary
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > type,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >    but throw an exception if the
> range
> > > is
> > > > >> out
> > > > >> > of
> > > > >> > > > > > bounds.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's
> > comments.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP
> > > once
> > > > >> all
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > > > > details
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> are
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > settled
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > here?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey
> > > > >> Mashenkov
> > > > >> > <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63
> > > can't
> > > > >> be
> > > > >> > > > treated
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> correctly
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > now
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong
> > results)
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I think we could make "true"
> support
> > > for
> > > > >> > > unsigned
> > > > >> > > > > > >> types,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> but
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > they
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > limitations on the Java side.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to
> > map
> > > > >> uint64
> > > > >> > to
> > > > >> > > > > Java
> > > > >> > > > > > >> long
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > primitive,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > but
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > BigInteger only.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > As for indices, we could read
> uint64
> > > to
> > > > >> Java
> > > > >> > > > long,
> > > > >> > > > > > but
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> treat
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > negative
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > values in a different way to
> > preserve
> > > > >> correct
> > > > >> > > > > > ordering.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > These limitations will affect only
> > > mixed
> > > > >> > > > > environments
> > > > >> > > > > > >> when
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > .Net
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Java
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > used to access the data.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Will this solution address your
> > > issues?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM
> > Pavel
> > > > >> > Tupitsyn
> > > > >> > > <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite
> > since
> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > beginning
> > > > >> > > > > > >> with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > .NET
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > C++
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > :)
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives
> as
> > > > cache
> > > > >> > keys
> > > > >> > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> values,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > as
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > fields
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > properties,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in
> WHERE
> > > x=y
> > > > >> > > clauses)
> > > > >> > > > -
> > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> works
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > transparently
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the users.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and
> treats
> > > > those
> > > > >> > > values
> > > > >> > > > > as
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > corresponding
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > signed
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks
> in
> > > > some
> > > > >> > cases
> > > > >> > > > > only
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> because
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > there
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > are
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > no
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > corresponding type ids.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very
> > > > simple
> > > > >> > > change
> > > > >> > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > protocol
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > -
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > add
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > type
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same
> way
> > as
> > > > >> signed
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> counterparts.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM
> > > Andrey
> > > > >> > > > Mashenkov
> > > > >> > > > > <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java
> > > > (bitwise
> > > > >> > > > > > >> representation
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > same)
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class
> > > with a
> > > > >> > uByte
> > > > >> > > > > field
> > > > >> > > > > > >> and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> map
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > 'uint8'
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > column.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value
> to
> > > > "250"
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> > > put
> > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> object
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > into a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > table,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to
> a
> > > > single
> > > > >> > byte
> > > > >> > > > > > 'int8'
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > column.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't
> > deserialize
> > > it
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> > > > > directly
> > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Java
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > object
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > field
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map
> > > uint8
> > > > >> type
> > > > >> > to
> > > > >> > > > > Java
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 'short'
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > type
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > because the one expected to
> see
> > > > "250"
> > > > >> as
> > > > >> > a
> > > > >> > > > > value
> > > > >> > > > > > >> which
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > doesn't
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > fit
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > signed type.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a
> > > > >> BigInteger
> > > > >> > > > field
> > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Java.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat
> > > column
> > > > >> value
> > > > >> > > as
> > > > >> > > > > Java
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 'byte'
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > as
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > is,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > because
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a
> > > > negative
> > > > >> > > value,
> > > > >> > > > so
> > > > >> > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> should
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > cast
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > short
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to
> > BigInteger
> > > > for
> > > > >> > > > uint64)
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will
> > > > require
> > > > >> a
> > > > >> > > > > different
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > comparator.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23
> PM
> > > > Pavel
> > > > >> > > > Tupitsyn
> > > > >> > > > > <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think range
> narrowing
> > > is a
> > > > >> good
> > > > >> > > > idea.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with
> > the
> > > > >> simple
> > > > >> > > > > > approach
> > > > >> > > > > > >> I
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > described?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01
> > PM
> > > > >> Andrey
> > > > >> > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > >> > > > > > >> <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with
> narrowing
> > > > range
> > > > >> > for
> > > > >> > > > > > unsigned
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> types
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > then
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > we
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > could
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > add a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned
> > types
> > > on
> > > > >> > schema
> > > > >> > > > > level
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> (like
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > nullability
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > flag)
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed
> > types
> > > > in
> > > > >> > > > storage.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a
> separate
> > > > >> storage
> > > > >> > > > > > >> type-system
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > binary
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > protocol
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most
> of
> > > > type
> > > > >> > will
> > > > >> > > > > match
> > > > >> > > > > > 1
> > > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 1
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > storage
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (native)
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will
> either
> > > > have
> > > > >> a
> > > > >> > > > > separate
> > > > >> > > > > > >> type
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> id
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > or
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > treat
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > serialized
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema
> > > (signed
> > > > >> or
> > > > >> > > > > unsigned
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> flag).
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can
> ever
> > > > >> foresee
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> consequences
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > of
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > using
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > types.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to
> > > unsigned
> > > > >> types
> > > > >> > > > > > perfectly
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> works
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > some
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > database,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite
> > > > >> successor
> > > > >> > > > > > confession
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > our
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > "native"
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that
> he
> > > can
> > > > >> use
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > > > power
> > > > >> > > > > > >> of
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Ignite
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Compute
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Java
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will
> > either
> > > > >> fail to
> > > > >> > > use
> > > > >> > > > > his
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > unsigned
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > data
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Java
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > due
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues
> due
> > to
> > > > >> > natural
> > > > >> > > > Java
> > > > >> > > > > > >> type
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > system
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > limitations
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > e.g.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to
> > > BigInteger.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively
> > > > supported
> > > > >> > types
> > > > >> > > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> possible
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > value
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > ranges
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be
> known.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is
> > what
> > > > >> > trade-off
> > > > >> > > > we
> > > > >> > > > > > >> found
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > acceptable:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > narrowing
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use
> > > types
> > > > >> of
> > > > >> > > wider
> > > > >> > > > > > >> range on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > systems
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > like
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Java.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
> 3:25
> > > PM
> > > > >> Igor
> > > > >> > > > > Sapego <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is
> > not
> > > so
> > > > >> hard
> > > > >> > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> implement
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > comparison
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it
> > does
> > > > not
> > > > >> > seem
> > > > >> > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > be a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> big
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > issue
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > from
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > my
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > perspective.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of
> > unsigned
> > > > >> types
> > > > >> > > from
> > > > >> > > > > > Java
> > > > >> > > > > > >> - I
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > think,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > if
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > user
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going
> > to
> > > > >> > interact
> > > > >> > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> from
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Java
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > he
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > knows
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > he
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > doing.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use
> > from
> > > > >> > > platforms
> > > > >> > > > > > where
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> they
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > have
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > native
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > widely
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or
> .NET,
> > > > where
> > > > >> > > users
> > > > >> > > > > > >> currently
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > have
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > make a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > manual
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > casting
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using
> > > > unsigned
> > > > >> > > types
> > > > >> > > > > when
> > > > >> > > > > > >> they
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > use
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Ignite.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at
> > 3:06
> > > > PM
> > > > >> > Pavel
> > > > >> > > > > > >> Tupitsyn <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much
> > > simpler:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support
> > for
> > > > >> those
> > > > >> > > > types
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > (basically,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > just
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > add
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > more
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ids)
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long
> in
> > > > Java
> > > > >> > > > (bitwise
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > representation
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > same)
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have
> > > > >> unsigned
> > > > >> > > > > integers,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> so
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> we
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > can
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > simply
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > say
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value
> relative
> > > > >> > comparison
> > > > >> > > is
> > > > >> > > > > not
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > supported
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > SQL
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (equality
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work).
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020
> at
> > > 2:40
> > > > >> PM
> > > > >> > > > Andrey
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Mashenkov
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and
> > Igor.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to
> > > have
> > > > >> i8 or
> > > > >> > > > int8
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> instead of
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Integer.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming
> doesn't
> > > > >> address
> > > > >> > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > issue.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal
> types
> > > > >> should
> > > > >> > be
> > > > >> > > > > > portable
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > across
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > different
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > systems
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned
> type
> > > > >> support.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here
> is
> > > > that
> > > > >> > > > unsigned
> > > > >> > > > > > >> types
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > cover
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > different
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > ranges.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want
> > to
> > > > >> > > introduce a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> uLong.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look
> like a
> > > big
> > > > >> deal
> > > > >> > > to
> > > > >> > > > > add
> > > > >> > > > > > >> uLong
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > type
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > support
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > at
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > storage
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8
> > bytes
> > > > and
> > > > >> > then
> > > > >> > > > use
> > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> e.g.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > .Net
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > only.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could
> > support
> > > > it
> > > > >> in
> > > > >> > > e.g.
> > > > >> > > > > > Java?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind
> > Long
> > > > >> range
> > > > >> > is
> > > > >> > > > > about
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> (2^-63
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > ..
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 2^63)
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > range
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64)
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option
> is
> > > to
> > > > >> > > restrict
> > > > >> > > > > > range
> > > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> (0
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > ..
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > 2^63).
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > This
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no
> > conversion,
> > > > but
> > > > >> > > > doesn't
> > > > >> > > > > > look
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> like
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > 'real'
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uLong
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go
> > worse
> > > > >> when
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > > > user
> > > > >> > > > > > >> will
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> use
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > uByte,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > as
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > limitation
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally
> > > > unusable.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is
> > to
> > > > map
> > > > >> > > > unsigned
> > > > >> > > > > > >> types
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > type
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > wider
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > type
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for
> > > negative
> > > > >> > values.
> > > > >> > > > > E.g.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> uLong to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > BigInteger.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use
> > > primitive
> > > > >> Java
> > > > >> > > > type
> > > > >> > > > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Long
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > here.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > However,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > still
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store
> > uLong
> > > > in 8
> > > > >> > > bytes,
> > > > >> > > > > but
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> have a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > special
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > comparator
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to
> > avoid
> > > > >> > unwanted
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > deserialization.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020
> > at
> > > > >> 2:04 PM
> > > > >> > > > Pavel
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Tupitsyn
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get
> rid
> > > of
> > > > >> > "long,
> > > > >> > > > > short,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> byte"
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > protocol
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > definition.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust
> > style,
> > > > >> which
> > > > >> > is
> > > > >> > > > > > concise
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > unambiguous:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16,
> > etc
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24,
> 2020
> > > at
> > > > >> 1:58
> > > > >> > PM
> > > > >> > > > > Igor
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Sapego <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally
> support
> > > > that.
> > > > >> > Also,
> > > > >> > > > if
> > > > >> > > > > we
> > > > >> > > > > > >> are
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > aiming
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger
> > > > >> > > platform-independance,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas
> we
> > > may
> > > > >> want
> > > > >> > to
> > > > >> > > > > > support
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > bit-notation
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > (int32,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > uint64)?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean
> a
> > > > >> different
> > > > >> > > > type
> > > > >> > > > > on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > different
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > platforms
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens
> > often
> > > > when
> > > > >> > > using
> > > > >> > > > > ODBC
> > > > >> > > > > > >> for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > example).
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24,
> > 2020
> > > > at
> > > > >> > 1:34
> > > > >> > > PM
> > > > >> > > > > > Pavel
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > Tupitsyn
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we
> > should
> > > > >> support
> > > > >> > > > > > unsigned
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> data
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > types:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort,
> > > uInt,
> > > > >> > uLong
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not
> > have
> > > > >> them,
> > > > >> > > but
> > > > >> > > > > many
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> other
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > languages
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > do,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the
> > > growing
> > > > >> > number
> > > > >> > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > > thin
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > clients
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > this
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > important.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example,
> in
> > > > >> current
> > > > >> > > > > > Ignite.NET
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > implementation
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > we
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > store
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed
> > > > internally,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a
> > huge
> > > > >> pain
> > > > >> > > when
> > > > >> > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> comes
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > metadata,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > binary
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to
> > > > >> > deserialize
> > > > >> > > > int
> > > > >> > > > > as
> > > > >> > > > > > >> uint
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > when
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > you
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > have
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > class,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > BinaryObject.GetField)
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> objections?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov
> 24,
> > > 2020
> > > > >> at
> > > > >> > > 12:28
> > > > >> > > > > PM
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Andrey
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Mashenkov <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > [hidden email]
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point.
> > Both
> > > > >> > > > serializers
> > > > >> > > > > > use
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > reflection
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we
> > will
> > > > >> allow
> > > > >> > > > users
> > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > configure
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > static
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > along
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict'
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode,
> > we
> > > > >> still
> > > > >> > > need
> > > > >> > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> validate
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > user
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > classes
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > client
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest
> > > schema
> > > > in
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > > grid
> > > > >> > > > > > >> and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > reflection
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > only
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can
> find a
> > > few
> > > > >> > > articles
> > > > >> > > > > on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > internet
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > how
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > enable
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create
> a
> > > task
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> > > > > > supporting
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > GraalVM,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > maybe
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > someone
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> with
> > > > >> GraalVM
> > > > >> > > will
> > > > >> > > > > > >> suggest a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > solution
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > or
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proper
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a
> > bit
> > > > >> later.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no
> > workaround
> > > > is
> > > > >> > > found,
> > > > >> > > > we
> > > > >> > > > > > >> could
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > allow
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > users
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > write
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > own
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer,
> > but
> > > I
> > > > >> don't
> > > > >> > > > think
> > > > >> > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > good
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > idea
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > expose
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to
> the
> > > > >> public.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov
> > 24,
> > > > >> 2020 at
> > > > >> > > > 2:55
> > > > >> > > > > AM
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Denis
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Magda <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey,
> > thanks
> > > > for
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > > > > update,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any
> of
> > > the
> > > > >> > > > serializers
> > > > >> > > > > > >> take
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> into
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > consideration
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > native-image-generation
> > > > >> > > > > > >> feature of
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > GraalVM?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the
> > > current
> > > > >> > binary
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> marshaller,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > we
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > can't
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > even
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > generate
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the
> code
> > > > using
> > > > >> > our
> > > > >> > > > thin
> > > > >> > > > > > >> client
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > APIs.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon,
> Nov
> > > 23,
> > > > >> 2020
> > > > >> > at
> > > > >> > > > > 4:39
> > > > >> > > > > > AM
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Andrey
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Mashenkov
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi
> > Igniters,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like
> > to
> > > > >> > continue
> > > > >> > > > > > >> discussion
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> of
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > IEP-54
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > (Schema-first
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach).
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope
> > > everyone
> > > > >> who
> > > > >> > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> interested
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > had a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > chance
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > get
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal
> > > [1].
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please,
> do
> > > not
> > > > >> > > hesitate
> > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> ask
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > questions
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > share
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > prepared
> > > > a
> > > > >> > > > prototype
> > > > >> > > > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > serializer
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > [2]
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > data
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > layout
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the
> > > > proposal.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > prototy,
> > > I
> > > > >> > > compared
> > > > >> > > > 2
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> approaches
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > (de)serialize
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > objects,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> java
> > > > >> > > > > reflection/unsafe
> > > > >> > > > > > >> API
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > similar
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > one
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the
> > > second
> > > > >> one
> > > > >> > > > > > generates
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > serializer
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino
> > > library
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> compilation.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second
> one
> > > > shows
> > > > >> > > better
> > > > >> > > > > > >> results
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > benchmarks.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think
> we
> > > can
> > > > >> go
> > > > >> > > with
> > > > >> > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > as
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > default
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > serializer
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > reflection-based
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > implementation
> > > > >> as a
> > > > >> > > > > > fallback
> > > > >> > > > > > >> if
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > someone
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > have
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There
> are
> > a
> > > > >> number
> > > > >> > of
> > > > >> > > > > tasks
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> under
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > umbrella
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ticket
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> assignee.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm
> > > going
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> > > > create
> > > > >> > > > > > more
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > tickets
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > schema
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > manager
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > implementation,
> > > > >> but
> > > > >> > > > would
> > > > >> > > > > > >> like
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > clarify
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > some
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > details.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> thought
> > > > >> > > schemaManager
> > > > >> > > > > on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> each
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > node
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > should
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > held:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   1.
> Local
> > > > >> mapping
> > > > >> > of
> > > > >> > > > > > "schema
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > version"
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > <-->
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > validated
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes
> > > pair.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >   2.
> > > > >> Cluster-wide
> > > > >> > > > schema
> > > > >> > > > > > >> changes
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > history.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the
> > > client
> > > > >> side.
> > > > >> > > > > Before
> > > > >> > > > > > >> any
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > key-value
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > API
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > operation
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > for a
> > > > >> given
> > > > >> > > > > > key-value
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> pair.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there
> > is
> > > no
> > > > >> > > > > > local-mapping
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> exists
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > given
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster
> > wide
> > > > >> schema
> > > > >> > > > has a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> more
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > recent
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > version
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> be
> > > > >> validated
> > > > >> > > > > against
> > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > latest
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > version
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > local
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> updated/actualized.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an
> > object
> > > > >> > doesn't
> > > > >> > > > fit
> > > > >> > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > latest
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > schema
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > then
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > depends
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode:
> > either
> > > > >> fail
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> operation
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > ('strict'
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > mode)
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created
> > and
> > > a
> > > > >> new
> > > > >> > > > schema
> > > > >> > > > > > >> version
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > should
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > propagated
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the
> > > server
> > > > >> side
> > > > >> > we
> > > > >> > > > > > usually
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> have
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > no
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > key-value
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > classes
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As
> schema
> > > > change
> > > > >> > > > history
> > > > >> > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > available
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > tuple
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is
> > > possible
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> > > > upgrade
> > > > >> > > > > > any
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > received
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > tuple
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > last
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > desialization.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we
> > > could
> > > > >> allow
> > > > >> > > > nodes
> > > > >> > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> send
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > key-value
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > pairs
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they
> > didn't
> > > > >> > receive a
> > > > >> > > > > > schema
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> update
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > yet)
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > without
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > reverting
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by
> a
> > > node
> > > > >> with
> > > > >> > > > newer
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> classes.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex,
> Val,
> > > > Ivan
> > > > >> did
> > > > >> > > you
> > > > >> > > > > > mean
> > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > same?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3]
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu,
> > Sep
> > > > 17,
> > > > >> > 2020
> > > > >> > > at
> > > > >> > > > > > 9:21
> > > > >> > > > > > >> AM
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Ivan
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please
> > do
> > > > not
> > > > >> > > ignore
> > > > >> > > > > > >> history.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> We
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > had
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > thread
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas.
> > We
> > > > can
> > > > >> > > resume
> > > > >> > > > > it.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > 2020-09-10
> > > > >> 0:08
> > > > >> > > > > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Denis
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Magda
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val,
> > > makes
> > > > >> > sense,
> > > > >> > > > > > thanks
> > > > >> > > > > > >> for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > explaining.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Agree
> > > that
> > > > >> we
> > > > >> > > need
> > > > >> > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> have a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > separate
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > "cache"
> > > > >> terms
> > > > >> > > > > > >> substitution.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > I'll
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > appreciate
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > sharing
> > > > >> > pointers
> > > > >> > > to
> > > > >> > > > > any
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > relevant
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > IEPs
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > reasoning
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > behind
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> suggested
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > change.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> Denis
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On
> > Tue,
> > > > Sep
> > > > >> 8,
> > > > >> > > 2020
> > > > >> > > > > at
> > > > >> > > > > > >> 6:01
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> PM
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Valentin
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> [hidden email]>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi
> > > Denis,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I
> > guess
> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > wording
> > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> IEP
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > little
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > bit
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> that
> > > you
> > > > >> > should
> > > > >> > > > not
> > > > >> > > > > > >> create
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > nested
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > POJOs,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > but
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inline
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > single
> > > > POJO
> > > > >> > that
> > > > >> > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> mapped
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > particular
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > In
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> POJOs
> > > are
> > > > >> not
> > > > >> > > > > > supported.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> Alex,
> > > is
> > > > >> this
> > > > >> > > > > correct?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Please
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > let
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > me
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > know
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > if
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > >> > > "cache"
> > > > >> > > > > > >> term, I
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > agree
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > that
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > outdated,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> what
> > we
> > > > can
> > > > >> > > > replace
> > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> with.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > "Table"
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > tightly
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL
> > is
> > > > >> > optional
> > > > >> > > in
> > > > >> > > > > our
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> case.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Do
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > you
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > want
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > create a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> discussion
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> about
> > > > this?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> -Val
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On
> > Tue,
> > > > >> Sep 8,
> > > > >> > > > 2020
> > > > >> > > > > at
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 4:37 PM
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Denis
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> Val,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> I've
> > > > >> checked
> > > > >> > > the
> > > > >> > > > > IEP
> > > > >> > > > > > >> again
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > have a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > few
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > questions.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > Arbitrary
> > > > >> > > nested
> > > > >> > > > > > >> objects
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > collections
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > values.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > Nested
> > > > >> > POJOs
> > > > >> > > > > should
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> either
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > inlined
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > into
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > Could
> > > > you
> > > > >> > > > provide a
> > > > >> > > > > > DDL
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> code
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > snippet
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > showing
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > supposed
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> > > work?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > Also,
> > > we
> > > > >> keep
> > > > >> > > > using
> > > > >> > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> terms
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > "cache"
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > "table"
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> the
> > > > right
> > > > >> > time
> > > > >> > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> discuss
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> an
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > alternate
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > name
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> too?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> Personally,
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > > > > "table"
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > should
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > stay
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > "cache"
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> considering
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> that
> > > SQL
> > > > >> is
> > > > >> > one
> > > > >> > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > primary
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > APIs
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> supported
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > out-of-the-box.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> -
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > Denis
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On
> > > Mon,
> > > > >> Sep
> > > > >> > 7,
> > > > >> > > > 2020
> > > > >> > > > > > at
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 12:26
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > PM
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > [hidden email]>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > Ivan,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> I
> > > see
> > > > >> your
> > > > >> > > > > point. I
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> agree
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > that
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > automatic
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> schema-last
> > > > >> > > > > > >> territory.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> Actually,
> > > > >> > if
> > > > >> > > we
> > > > >> > > > > > >> support
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > automatic
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > evolution,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> creating a
> > > > >> > > > cache
> > > > >> > > > > > >> without
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > schema
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > inferring
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > insert.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > other
> > > > >> > words,
> > > > >> > > we
> > > > >> > > > > can
> > > > >> > > > > > >> have
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > both
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last"
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > Alexey,
> > > > >> > what
> > > > >> > > do
> > > > >> > > > > you
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> think?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > -Val
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> On
> > > > Mon,
> > > > >> Sep
> > > > >> > > 7,
> > > > >> > > > > 2020
> > > > >> > > > > > >> at
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 5:59
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > AM
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Alexey
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> [hidden email]
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > > Ivan,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > > Thank
> > > > >> > you,
> > > > >> > > I
> > > > >> > > > > got
> > > > >> > > > > > >> your
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > concern
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > now.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > As
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > > >> > > terminology,
> > > > >> > > > I
> > > > >> > > > > am
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > absolutely
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > fine
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > changing
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> whatever
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> fits
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > the
> > > > >> > > approach
> > > > >> > > > > > best.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > Dynamic
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > or
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > evolving
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> make
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > > >> > > corresponding
> > > > >> > > > > > >> changes
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > IEP
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > once
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > settle
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > пн,
> > > > 7
> > > > >> > сент.
> > > > >> > > > > 2020
> > > > >> > > > > > >> г. в
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 11:33,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Ivan
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > Hi
> > > > >> Val,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> Thank
> > > > >> > you
> > > > >> > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> your
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > answer!
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > My
> > > > >> > > > > > understanding
> > > > >> > > > > > >> is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > little
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > bit
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > different.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> evolution
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > > definitely
> > > > >> > > > > > >> should be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > possible.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > But
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > see
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > main
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> schema
> > > > >> > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> updated".
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> I
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > treat a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > common
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > schema-first.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > Schema
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > and
> > > > >> > data
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> manipulation
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > operations
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > are
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > clearly
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > enables
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > > interesting
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > capabilities,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > e.g.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > preventing
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > untended
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > by
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > mistaken
> > > > >> > > > data
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > operations,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > restricting
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> schema.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > Schema-first
> > > > >> > > > > > >> means
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > that
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > schema
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > exists
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advance
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > stored
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > data
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > is
> > > > >> > > > compliant
> > > > >> > > > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> it -
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > that's
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > A
> > > > >> > > > schema-last
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> approach
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > mentioned
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> exists,
> > > > >> > > but
> > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > inferred
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > from
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > data.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > proposing
> > > > >> > > > > > >> approach?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > And
> > > > >> I
> > > > >> > > would
> > > > >> > > > > > like
> > > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > say,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > that
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > my
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > main
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> about
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > > > terminology.
> > > > >> > > > > > And
> > > > >> > > > > > >> I
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > suppose
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > if
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > confuses
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > me
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > then
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > confused
> > > > >> > > as
> > > > >> > > > > > >> well. My
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > feeling
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > closer
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > may
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > evolving
> > > > >> > > > > > schema".
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > [1]
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >>
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > > 2020-09-07
> > > > >> > > > > 0:47
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi
> > > > >> > > Ivan,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I
> > > > >> > don't
> > > > >> > > > see
> > > > >> > > > > > an
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> issue
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > that.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > exists
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >> > advance
> > > > >> > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > all
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > stored
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > data
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > compliant
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > exactly
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > what
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > proposed.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> There
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > are
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > no
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > restrictions
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > > >> schema.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >> -Val
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On
> > > > >> > Sat,
> > > > >> > > > Sep
> > > > >> > > > > > 5,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 2020
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > at
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > 9:52
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > PM
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Ivan
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > > Alexey,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> I
> > > > >> > am a
> > > > >> > > > > > little
> > > > >> > > > > > >> bit
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > confused
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > terminology.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > understanding
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > conforms
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> to a
> > > > >> > > > > survey
> > > > >> > > > > > >> [1]
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> (see
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > part
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > X
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Semi
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Structured
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data).
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > really
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > treat
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> a
> > > > >> > > > "dynamic
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> schema"
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > approach
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > as a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > kind
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> "schema-first"?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> [1]
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >>
> > >
> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > > > 2020-09-02
> > > > >> > > > > > >> 1:53
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > GMT+03:00,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > However,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> could
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > please
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > Ignite
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > ORM?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > Is
> > > > >> > > > > there
> > > > >> > > > > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> use
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > case
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > (I
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > > >> haven't
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > seen
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > one
> > > > >> > > > so
> > > > >> > > > > > >> far)?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> If
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > so,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > what
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> side
> > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > > support
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > this?
> > > > >> > > > > In
> > > > >> > > > > > my
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > already
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > have.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > Am
> > > > >> > > I
> > > > >> > > > > > >> missing
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > something?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Good
> > > > >> > > > > > point,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> yes,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > if
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > all
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > ORM
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > integrations
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> APIs
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > internally,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> then
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > they
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > can
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > easily
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > translate
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> into
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> an
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> INSERT/UPDATE
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > statement
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > that
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > lists
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > Luckily,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > our
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > Spring
> > > > >> > > > > > Data
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > integration
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > already
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > based
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > APIs
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > needs
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > to
> > > > >> > > be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> improved
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > once
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> supported.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> That
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > > would
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > solve
> > > > >> > > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > ton
> > > > >> > > > > > >> of
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > usability
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > issues.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > I
> > > > >> > > > would
> > > > >> > > > > > >> revise
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > Ignite
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > 3.0
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> dev
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > phase.
> > > > >> > > > > > Can't
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> say
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > if
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > it's
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > used
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > lot
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > getting
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > traction
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > sure.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > @Michael
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Pollind,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > I'll
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > loop
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > you
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > long
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > working
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > Ignite
> > > > >> > > > > > >> support
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Micornaut
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > >
> > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/
> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > came
> > > > >> > > > > > across
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> some
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > challenges.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Just
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > watch
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > That's
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > what
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > coming
> > > > >> > > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> Ignite
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 3.0.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > -
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > Denis
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > On
> > > > >> > > > Mon,
> > > > >> > > > > > Aug
> > > > >> > > > > > >> 31,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > 2020
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > at
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > 5:11
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > Hi
> > > > >> > > > > Denis,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > Generally
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > speaking, I
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > believe
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> approach
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > > >> natively
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > addresses
> > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > issue
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > if
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > duplicate
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > fields
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > objects,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > > because
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > schema
> > > > >> > > > > > >> will be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > created
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > cache,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > > >> happens
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> now.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > Basically,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > schema
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > will
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > define
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > whether
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> primary
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> key
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> or
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > not,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > and
> > > > >> > > > > which
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> fields
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > are
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > included
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > case
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> that
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> we
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > would
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > have
> > > > >> > > > > must
> > > > >> > > > > > >> be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > compliant
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > this,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > work
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > data
> > > > >> > > > as
> > > > >> > > > > > >> with a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > set
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > of
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > records,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > However,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> could
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > you
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > please
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > elaborate
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > Ignite
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > ORM?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > Is
> > > > >> > > > > there
> > > > >> > > > > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> use
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > case
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hibernate
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > running
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > (I
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > > >> haven't
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > seen
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > one
> > > > >> > > > so
> > > > >> > > > > > >> far)?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> If
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > so,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > what
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > missing
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> side
> > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > > support
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > this?
> > > > >> > > > > In
> > > > >> > > > > > my
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > understanding,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > all
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > need
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > already
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > have.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > Am
> > > > >> > > I
> > > > >> > > > > > >> missing
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > something?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > -Val
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > On
> > > > >> > > > Mon,
> > > > >> > > > > > Aug
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 31,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > 2020
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > at
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > 2:08
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > PM
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > Val,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > I
> > > > >> > > > > would
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> propose
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > adding
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > another
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > point
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> motivations
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > list
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > > which
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > related
> > > > >> > > > > > >> to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > ORM
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > frameworks
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > Hibernate,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > > > Micronaut
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > many
> > > > >> > > > > > >> others.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> Presently,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > storage
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > engine
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > requires
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > objects
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > from
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > value
> > > > >> > > > > > >> ones
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> that
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > complicate
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> ORM
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> frameworks
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> (especially
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> if
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > key
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > object
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > comprises
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields).
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > More
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > this
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> can
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > found
> > > > >> > > > > > >> here:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > It
> > > > >> > > > > will
> > > > >> > > > > > >> be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> nice
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > if
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > new
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > work
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> with
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > single
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> entity
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > object
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > when
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > comes
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> need
> > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > split
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > entity
> > > > >> > > > > > >> into
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > key
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > value.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Just
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > Ignite
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > 3.0
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > has
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > all
> > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > essential
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > public
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > APIs
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > > >> > > single-entity
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > based
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > approach.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > What
> > > > >> > > > > do
> > > > >> > > > > > >> you
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > think?
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > -
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > Denis
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > On
> > > > >> > > > > Fri,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> Aug
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> 28,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > 2020
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > at
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > 3:50
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > PM
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko <
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> Igniters,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > One
> > > > >> > > > > > of
> > > > >> > > > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > big
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > changes
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proposed
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> so-called
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> "schema-first
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > approach".
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > To
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > started
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> writing
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > IEP
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > for
> > > > >> > > > > > >> this
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > change:
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > Please
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> take a
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > look
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > and
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > let
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > me
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > know
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > immediate
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> thoughts,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> suggestions,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > or
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > objections.
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > -Val
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> Best
> > > > >> > > > > > regards,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> Ivan
> > > > >> > > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > Best
> > > > >> > > > regards,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > Ivan
> > > > >> > > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best
> > > > regards,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan
> > > > Pavlukhin
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best
> > > regards,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey
> V.
> > > > >> Mashenkov
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best
> regards,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V.
> > > > Mashenkov
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > --
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > --
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Best regards,
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > > --
> > > > >> > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > >> > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > --
> > > > >> > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > >> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > --
> > > > >> > > > Best regards,
> > > > >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > --
> > > > >> > Best regards,
> > > > >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrey V. Mashenkov
> >
>

--
Best regards,
Andrey V. Mashenkov