IGNITE-2894 - Binary object inside of Externalizable still serialized with OptimizedMarshaller

[Nikita Amelchev]

Hello everyone.

I'd like to take IGNITE-2894. Can you assign to me?

Username: NSAmelchev

--
Best wishes,
Amelchev Nikita

[dmagda]

Hi Nikita,

I can’t find provided account in Ignite JIRA
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE>

Please create an account there and share with me.

This information might be useful for you as well.

Subscribe to both dev and user lists:
https://ignite.apache.org/community/resources.html#mail-lists

Get familiar with Ignite development process described here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Development+Process

Instructions on how to contribute can be found here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute

Project setup in Intellij IDEAL
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Project+Setup

Regards,
Denis

> On Jan 13, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Nikita Amelchev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hello everyone.
>
> I'd like to take IGNITE-2894. Can you assign to me?
>
> Username: NSAmelchev
>
> --
> Best wishes,
> Amelchev Nikita

[Nikita Amelchev]

This issue was created long ago. Is still relevant?

JIRA account:
Username: NSAmelchev
Full Name: Amelchev Nikita


2017-01-14 1:52 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <[hidden email]>:

> Hi Nikita,
>
> I can’t find provided account in Ignite JIRA
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE <https://issues.apache.org/
> jira/browse/IGNITE>
>
> Please create an account there and share with me.
>
> This information might be useful for you as well.
>
> Subscribe to both dev and user lists:
> https://ignite.apache.org/community/resources.html#mail-lists
>
> Get familiar with Ignite development process described here:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Development+Process
>
> Instructions on how to contribute can be found here:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute
>
> Project setup in Intellij IDEAL
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Project+Setup
>
> Regards,
> Denis
>
> > On Jan 13, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Nikita Amelchev <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello everyone.
> >
> > I'd like to take IGNITE-2894. Can you assign to me?
> >
> > Username: NSAmelchev
> >
> > --
> > Best wishes,
> > Amelchev Nikita
>
>

--
Best wishes,
Amelchev Nikita

[dmagda]

Someone else added you to the contributors list in JIRA. This is why I couldn’t add you for the second time. Ignite committers, please reply on the dev list if you add someone to the list.

Nikita, yes, this ticket is still relevant. Go ahead and assign it on yourself.

Also please you may want to help with approaching 2.0 release and take care of one of the sub-tasks that must be included in 2.0:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4547 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4547>

—
Denis

> On Jan 15, 2017, at 9:02 PM, Nikita Amelchev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> This issue was created long ago. Is still relevant?
>
> JIRA account:
> Username: NSAmelchev
> Full Name: Amelchev Nikita
>
>
> 2017-01-14 1:52 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <[hidden email]>:
>
>> Hi Nikita,
>>
>> I can’t find provided account in Ignite JIRA
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE <https://issues.apache.org/
>> jira/browse/IGNITE>
>>
>> Please create an account there and share with me.
>>
>> This information might be useful for you as well.
>>
>> Subscribe to both dev and user lists:
>> https://ignite.apache.org/community/resources.html#mail-lists
>>
>> Get familiar with Ignite development process described here:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Development+Process
>>
>> Instructions on how to contribute can be found here:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute
>>
>> Project setup in Intellij IDEAL
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Project+Setup
>>
>> Regards,
>> Denis
>>
>>> On Jan 13, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Nikita Amelchev <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello everyone.
>>>
>>> I'd like to take IGNITE-2894. Can you assign to me?
>>>
>>> Username: NSAmelchev
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best wishes,
>>> Amelchev Nikita
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Best wishes,
> Amelchev Nikita

[Nikita Amelchev]

I have some questions about single Marshaller.
It seems not easy to merge OptimizedMarshaller with BinaryMarshaller and is
there any sense in it?
When Binary object inside Externalizable serialized with optimized it
losing all benefits.
Will OptimizedMarshaller be supported at 2.0 version? Or to merge they is
better?
What do you think about it?

In addition, Vladimir Ozerov, I would like to hear your opinion.

2017-01-17 23:32 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <[hidden email]>:

> Someone else added you to the contributors list in JIRA. This is why I
> couldn’t add you for the second time. Ignite committers, please reply on
> the dev list if you add someone to the list.
>
> Nikita, yes, this ticket is still relevant. Go ahead and assign it on
> yourself.
>
> Also please you may want to help with approaching 2.0 release and take
> care of one of the sub-tasks that must be included in 2.0:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4547 <
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4547>
>
> —
> Denis
>
> > On Jan 15, 2017, at 9:02 PM, Nikita Amelchev <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > This issue was created long ago. Is still relevant?
> >
> > JIRA account:
> > Username: NSAmelchev
> > Full Name: Amelchev Nikita
> >
> >
> > 2017-01-14 1:52 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <[hidden email]>:
> >
> >> Hi Nikita,
> >>
> >> I can’t find provided account in Ignite JIRA
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE <
> https://issues.apache.org/
> >> jira/browse/IGNITE>
> >>
> >> Please create an account there and share with me.
> >>
> >> This information might be useful for you as well.
> >>
> >> Subscribe to both dev and user lists:
> >> https://ignite.apache.org/community/resources.html#mail-lists
> >>
> >> Get familiar with Ignite development process described here:
> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Development+Process
> >>
> >> Instructions on how to contribute can be found here:
> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute
> >>
> >> Project setup in Intellij IDEAL
> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Project+Setup
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Denis
> >>
> >>> On Jan 13, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Nikita Amelchev <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hello everyone.
> >>>
> >>> I'd like to take IGNITE-2894. Can you assign to me?
> >>>
> >>> Username: NSAmelchev
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Best wishes,
> >>> Amelchev Nikita
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best wishes,
> > Amelchev Nikita
>
>

--
Best wishes,
Amelchev Nikita

[Valentin Kulichenko]

Nikita,

In my view we just need to support Externalizable and
writeObject/readObject in BinaryMarshaller and get rid of delegation to
optimized marshaller. Once such classes also go through BinaryMarshaller
streams, they will be aware of binary configuration and will share the same
set of handles as well. This should take care of all the issues we have
here.

-Val

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Nikita Amelchev <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I have some questions about single Marshaller.
> It seems not easy to merge OptimizedMarshaller with BinaryMarshaller and is
> there any sense in it?
> When Binary object inside Externalizable serialized with optimized it
> losing all benefits.
> Will OptimizedMarshaller be supported at 2.0 version? Or to merge they is
> better?
> What do you think about it?
>
> In addition, Vladimir Ozerov, I would like to hear your opinion.
>
> 2017-01-17 23:32 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Someone else added you to the contributors list in JIRA. This is why I
> > couldn’t add you for the second time. Ignite committers, please reply on
> > the dev list if you add someone to the list.
> >
> > Nikita, yes, this ticket is still relevant. Go ahead and assign it on
> > yourself.
> >
> > Also please you may want to help with approaching 2.0 release and take
> > care of one of the sub-tasks that must be included in 2.0:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4547 <
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4547>
> >
> > —
> > Denis
> >
> > > On Jan 15, 2017, at 9:02 PM, Nikita Amelchev <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > This issue was created long ago. Is still relevant?
> > >
> > > JIRA account:
> > > Username: NSAmelchev
> > > Full Name: Amelchev Nikita
> > >
> > >
> > > 2017-01-14 1:52 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > >> Hi Nikita,
> > >>
> > >> I can’t find provided account in Ignite JIRA
> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE <
> > https://issues.apache.org/
> > >> jira/browse/IGNITE>
> > >>
> > >> Please create an account there and share with me.
> > >>
> > >> This information might be useful for you as well.
> > >>
> > >> Subscribe to both dev and user lists:
> > >> https://ignite.apache.org/community/resources.html#mail-lists
> > >>
> > >> Get familiar with Ignite development process described here:
> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/
> Development+Process
> > >>
> > >> Instructions on how to contribute can be found here:
> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+to+Contribute
> > >>
> > >> Project setup in Intellij IDEAL
> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Project+Setup
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Denis
> > >>
> > >>> On Jan 13, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Nikita Amelchev <[hidden email]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Hello everyone.
> > >>>
> > >>> I'd like to take IGNITE-2894. Can you assign to me?
> > >>>
> > >>> Username: NSAmelchev
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Best wishes,
> > >>> Amelchev Nikita
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best wishes,
> > > Amelchev Nikita
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best wishes,
> Amelchev Nikita
>

[Nikita Amelchev]

I see two ways to support the Externalizable in the BM:
1. Add a new type constant to the GridBinaryMarshaller class etc and
read/writeExternal in the BinaryClassDescriptor.
2. Make read/writeExternal through the BINARY type without updating
metadata.
I don't know how to make a support read/writeObject of the Serializable
without delegating to the OM. Because read/writeObject methods need the
Objectoutputstream class argument. One way is to delegate it to the
OptimizedObjectOutputStream. Second way is to extend the Objectoutputstream
in the BinaryWriterExImpl. But it is wrong way because the writeObject is
final.

2017-01-19 20:46 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
[hidden email]>:

> Nikita,
>
> In my view we just need to support Externalizable and
> writeObject/readObject in BinaryMarshaller and get rid of delegation to
> optimized marshaller. Once such classes also go through BinaryMarshaller
> streams, they will be aware of binary configuration and will share the same
> set of handles as well. This should take care of all the issues we have
> here.
>
> -Val
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Nikita Amelchev <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > I have some questions about single Marshaller.
> > It seems not easy to merge OptimizedMarshaller with BinaryMarshaller and
> is
> > there any sense in it?
> > When Binary object inside Externalizable serialized with optimized it
> > losing all benefits.
> > Will OptimizedMarshaller be supported at 2.0 version? Or to merge they is
> > better?
> > What do you think about it?
> >
> > In addition, Vladimir Ozerov, I would like to hear your opinion.
> >
> > 2017-01-17 23:32 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > Someone else added you to the contributors list in JIRA. This is why I
> > > couldn’t add you for the second time. Ignite committers, please reply
> on
> > > the dev list if you add someone to the list.
> > >
> > > Nikita, yes, this ticket is still relevant. Go ahead and assign it on
> > > yourself.
> > >
> > > Also please you may want to help with approaching 2.0 release and take
> > > care of one of the sub-tasks that must be included in 2.0:
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4547 <
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4547>
> > >
> > > —
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > > On Jan 15, 2017, at 9:02 PM, Nikita Amelchev <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This issue was created long ago. Is still relevant?
> > > >
> > > > JIRA account:
> > > > Username: NSAmelchev
> > > > Full Name: Amelchev Nikita
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2017-01-14 1:52 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <[hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi Nikita,
> > > >>
> > > >> I can’t find provided account in Ignite JIRA
> > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE <
> > > https://issues.apache.org/
> > > >> jira/browse/IGNITE>
> > > >>
> > > >> Please create an account there and share with me.
> > > >>
> > > >> This information might be useful for you as well.
> > > >>
> > > >> Subscribe to both dev and user lists:
> > > >> https://ignite.apache.org/community/resources.html#mail-lists
> > > >>
> > > >> Get familiar with Ignite development process described here:
> > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > Development+Process
> > > >>
> > > >> Instructions on how to contribute can be found here:
> > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
> to+Contribute
> > > >>
> > > >> Project setup in Intellij IDEAL
> > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Project+Setup
> > > >>
> > > >> Regards,
> > > >> Denis
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Jan 13, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Nikita Amelchev <[hidden email]
> >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Hello everyone.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I'd like to take IGNITE-2894. Can you assign to me?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Username: NSAmelchev
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>> Best wishes,
> > > >>> Amelchev Nikita
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best wishes,
> > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best wishes,
> > Amelchev Nikita
> >
>

--
Best wishes,
Amelchev Nikita

[Valentin Kulichenko]

Nikita,

For Externalizable option 1 is the correct one. Externalizable objects
should not be treated as binary objects.

For read/writeObject, you indeed have to extend ObjectOutputStream.
writeObject() is final because you should extend writeObjectOverride()
instead. Take a look at ObjectOutputStream's JavaDoc and on how this is
done in OptimizedObjectOutputStream. Note that ideally we need to implement
everything that is included in Java serialization spec, including some
non-trivial stuff like PutField. I would check if it's possible to somehow
reuse the code that already exists in optimized marshaller as much as
possible.

-Val

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Nikita Amelchev <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I see two ways to support the Externalizable in the BM:
> 1. Add a new type constant to the GridBinaryMarshaller class etc and
> read/writeExternal in the BinaryClassDescriptor.
> 2. Make read/writeExternal through the BINARY type without updating
> metadata.
> I don't know how to make a support read/writeObject of the Serializable
> without delegating to the OM. Because read/writeObject methods need the
> Objectoutputstream class argument. One way is to delegate it to the
> OptimizedObjectOutputStream. Second way is to extend the Objectoutputstream
> in the BinaryWriterExImpl. But it is wrong way because the writeObject is
> final.
>
> 2017-01-19 20:46 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
> [hidden email]>:
>
> > Nikita,
> >
> > In my view we just need to support Externalizable and
> > writeObject/readObject in BinaryMarshaller and get rid of delegation to
> > optimized marshaller. Once such classes also go through BinaryMarshaller
> > streams, they will be aware of binary configuration and will share the
> same
> > set of handles as well. This should take care of all the issues we have
> > here.
> >
> > -Val
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Nikita Amelchev <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I have some questions about single Marshaller.
> > > It seems not easy to merge OptimizedMarshaller with BinaryMarshaller
> and
> > is
> > > there any sense in it?
> > > When Binary object inside Externalizable serialized with optimized it
> > > losing all benefits.
> > > Will OptimizedMarshaller be supported at 2.0 version? Or to merge they
> is
> > > better?
> > > What do you think about it?
> > >
> > > In addition, Vladimir Ozerov, I would like to hear your opinion.
> > >
> > > 2017-01-17 23:32 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > > Someone else added you to the contributors list in JIRA. This is why
> I
> > > > couldn’t add you for the second time. Ignite committers, please reply
> > on
> > > > the dev list if you add someone to the list.
> > > >
> > > > Nikita, yes, this ticket is still relevant. Go ahead and assign it on
> > > > yourself.
> > > >
> > > > Also please you may want to help with approaching 2.0 release and
> take
> > > > care of one of the sub-tasks that must be included in 2.0:
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4547 <
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4547>
> > > >
> > > > —
> > > > Denis
> > > >
> > > > > On Jan 15, 2017, at 9:02 PM, Nikita Amelchev <[hidden email]
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > This issue was created long ago. Is still relevant?
> > > > >
> > > > > JIRA account:
> > > > > Username: NSAmelchev
> > > > > Full Name: Amelchev Nikita
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 2017-01-14 1:52 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <[hidden email]>:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hi Nikita,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I can’t find provided account in Ignite JIRA
> > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE <
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > >> jira/browse/IGNITE>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Please create an account there and share with me.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> This information might be useful for you as well.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Subscribe to both dev and user lists:
> > > > >> https://ignite.apache.org/community/resources.html#mail-lists
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Get familiar with Ignite development process described here:
> > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > > Development+Process
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Instructions on how to contribute can be found here:
> > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
> > to+Contribute
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Project setup in Intellij IDEAL
> > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/Project+Setup
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Regards,
> > > > >> Denis
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> On Jan 13, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Hello everyone.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I'd like to take IGNITE-2894. Can you assign to me?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Username: NSAmelchev
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> --
> > > > >>> Best wishes,
> > > > >>> Amelchev Nikita
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best wishes,
> > > Amelchev Nikita
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best wishes,
> Amelchev Nikita
>

[Nikita Amelchev]

Hello everebody.

I would like to clarify about some moments in marshaller about custom
serialization.

1. I suggest to divide the issue into two tasks: support the Externalizable
and support the Serializable. The second task is to do as a separate issue.

2. In case the Optimized marshaller when object is the Extenalizable
BinaryUtils.unmarshal() return deserialize value. But if we will not use
Optimized marshaller and write the Extenalizable as the Object(103) it
return the BinaryObjectExImpl. It break testBuilderExternalizable. (If we
replace Externalizable to Binarilylizable it also dont work). Fix - check
that object is the Extenalizable and deserialize
manual(BinaryUtils.java:1833 in PR). We will use this fix or return
BinaryObjectExImpl?

3. What are priority if was implemented several interfaces: Binarylizable
-> Externalizable -> Serializable ?

Also can you pre review this issue?
PR: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2160

2017-04-18 17:41 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
[hidden email]>:

> Nikita,
>
> For Externalizable option 1 is the correct one. Externalizable objects
> should not be treated as binary objects.
>
> For read/writeObject, you indeed have to extend ObjectOutputStream.
> writeObject() is final because you should extend writeObjectOverride()
> instead. Take a look at ObjectOutputStream's JavaDoc and on how this is
> done in OptimizedObjectOutputStream. Note that ideally we need to implement
> everything that is included in Java serialization spec, including some
> non-trivial stuff like PutField. I would check if it's possible to somehow
> reuse the code that already exists in optimized marshaller as much as
> possible.
>
> -Val
>
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Nikita Amelchev <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > I see two ways to support the Externalizable in the BM:
> > 1. Add a new type constant to the GridBinaryMarshaller class etc and
> > read/writeExternal in the BinaryClassDescriptor.
> > 2. Make read/writeExternal through the BINARY type without updating
> > metadata.
> > I don't know how to make a support read/writeObject of the Serializable
> > without delegating to the OM. Because read/writeObject methods need the
> > Objectoutputstream class argument. One way is to delegate it to the
> > OptimizedObjectOutputStream. Second way is to extend the
> Objectoutputstream
> > in the BinaryWriterExImpl. But it is wrong way because the writeObject is
> > final.
> >
> > 2017-01-19 20:46 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
> > [hidden email]>:
> >
> > > Nikita,
> > >
> > > In my view we just need to support Externalizable and
> > > writeObject/readObject in BinaryMarshaller and get rid of delegation to
> > > optimized marshaller. Once such classes also go through
> BinaryMarshaller
> > > streams, they will be aware of binary configuration and will share the
> > same
> > > set of handles as well. This should take care of all the issues we have
> > > here.
> > >
> > > -Val
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Nikita Amelchev <[hidden email]
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have some questions about single Marshaller.
> > > > It seems not easy to merge OptimizedMarshaller with BinaryMarshaller
> > and
> > > is
> > > > there any sense in it?
> > > > When Binary object inside Externalizable serialized with optimized it
> > > > losing all benefits.
> > > > Will OptimizedMarshaller be supported at 2.0 version? Or to merge
> they
> > is
> > > > better?
> > > > What do you think about it?
> > > >
> > > > In addition, Vladimir Ozerov, I would like to hear your opinion.
> > > >
> > > > 2017-01-17 23:32 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <[hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > > > Someone else added you to the contributors list in JIRA. This is
> why
> > I
> > > > > couldn’t add you for the second time. Ignite committers, please
> reply
> > > on
> > > > > the dev list if you add someone to the list.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nikita, yes, this ticket is still relevant. Go ahead and assign it
> on
> > > > > yourself.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also please you may want to help with approaching 2.0 release and
> > take
> > > > > care of one of the sub-tasks that must be included in 2.0:
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4547 <
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4547>
> > > > >
> > > > > —
> > > > > Denis
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Jan 15, 2017, at 9:02 PM, Nikita Amelchev <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This issue was created long ago. Is still relevant?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > JIRA account:
> > > > > > Username: NSAmelchev
> > > > > > Full Name: Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2017-01-14 1:52 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <[hidden email]>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Hi Nikita,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I can’t find provided account in Ignite JIRA
> > > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE <
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > > >> jira/browse/IGNITE>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Please create an account there and share with me.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> This information might be useful for you as well.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Subscribe to both dev and user lists:
> > > > > >> https://ignite.apache.org/community/resources.html#mail-lists
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Get familiar with Ignite development process described here:
> > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > > > Development+Process
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Instructions on how to contribute can be found here:
> > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
> > > to+Contribute
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Project setup in Intellij IDEAL
> > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/
> Project+Setup
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Regards,
> > > > > >> Denis
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> On Jan 13, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Hello everyone.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> I'd like to take IGNITE-2894. Can you assign to me?
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Username: NSAmelchev
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> --
> > > > > >>> Best wishes,
> > > > > >>> Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best wishes,
> > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best wishes,
> > Amelchev Nikita
> >
>

--
Best wishes,
Amelchev Nikita

[Valentin Kulichenko]

Hi Nikita,

1. Makes sense to me.

2. Externalizable object should not be written as binary with flag 103, it
should be written in the same way it's written now. I don't see any reason
to change the protocol. Purpose of this task it to move the logic to binary
marshaller instead of depending on optimized marshaller, and also fully
support handles for these objects and objects included in them. Currently
binary marshaller and optimized marshaller use different set of handles -
this is the main downside of current implementation.

3. I think this order is correct, but does it even make sense to implement
both Binarylizable and Externalizable?

-Val

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Nikita Amelchev <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hello everebody.
>
> I would like to clarify about some moments in marshaller about custom
> serialization.
>
> 1. I suggest to divide the issue into two tasks: support the Externalizable
> and support the Serializable. The second task is to do as a separate issue.
>
> 2. In case the Optimized marshaller when object is the Extenalizable
> BinaryUtils.unmarshal() return deserialize value. But if we will not use
> Optimized marshaller and write the Extenalizable as the Object(103) it
> return the BinaryObjectExImpl. It break testBuilderExternalizable. (If we
> replace Externalizable to Binarilylizable it also dont work). Fix - check
> that object is the Extenalizable and deserialize
> manual(BinaryUtils.java:1833 in PR). We will use this fix or return
> BinaryObjectExImpl?
>
> 3. What are priority if was implemented several interfaces: Binarylizable
> -> Externalizable -> Serializable ?
>
> Also can you pre review this issue?
> PR: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2160
>
> 2017-04-18 17:41 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
> [hidden email]>:
>
> > Nikita,
> >
> > For Externalizable option 1 is the correct one. Externalizable objects
> > should not be treated as binary objects.
> >
> > For read/writeObject, you indeed have to extend ObjectOutputStream.
> > writeObject() is final because you should extend writeObjectOverride()
> > instead. Take a look at ObjectOutputStream's JavaDoc and on how this is
> > done in OptimizedObjectOutputStream. Note that ideally we need to
> implement
> > everything that is included in Java serialization spec, including some
> > non-trivial stuff like PutField. I would check if it's possible to
> somehow
> > reuse the code that already exists in optimized marshaller as much as
> > possible.
> >
> > -Val
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Nikita Amelchev <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I see two ways to support the Externalizable in the BM:
> > > 1. Add a new type constant to the GridBinaryMarshaller class etc and
> > > read/writeExternal in the BinaryClassDescriptor.
> > > 2. Make read/writeExternal through the BINARY type without updating
> > > metadata.
> > > I don't know how to make a support read/writeObject of the Serializable
> > > without delegating to the OM. Because read/writeObject methods need the
> > > Objectoutputstream class argument. One way is to delegate it to the
> > > OptimizedObjectOutputStream. Second way is to extend the
> > Objectoutputstream
> > > in the BinaryWriterExImpl. But it is wrong way because the writeObject
> is
> > > final.
> > >
> > > 2017-01-19 20:46 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > [hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > > Nikita,
> > > >
> > > > In my view we just need to support Externalizable and
> > > > writeObject/readObject in BinaryMarshaller and get rid of delegation
> to
> > > > optimized marshaller. Once such classes also go through
> > BinaryMarshaller
> > > > streams, they will be aware of binary configuration and will share
> the
> > > same
> > > > set of handles as well. This should take care of all the issues we
> have
> > > > here.
> > > >
> > > > -Val
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I have some questions about single Marshaller.
> > > > > It seems not easy to merge OptimizedMarshaller with
> BinaryMarshaller
> > > and
> > > > is
> > > > > there any sense in it?
> > > > > When Binary object inside Externalizable serialized with optimized
> it
> > > > > losing all benefits.
> > > > > Will OptimizedMarshaller be supported at 2.0 version? Or to merge
> > they
> > > is
> > > > > better?
> > > > > What do you think about it?
> > > > >
> > > > > In addition, Vladimir Ozerov, I would like to hear your opinion.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2017-01-17 23:32 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <[hidden email]>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Someone else added you to the contributors list in JIRA. This is
> > why
> > > I
> > > > > > couldn’t add you for the second time. Ignite committers, please
> > reply
> > > > on
> > > > > > the dev list if you add someone to the list.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nikita, yes, this ticket is still relevant. Go ahead and assign
> it
> > on
> > > > > > yourself.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also please you may want to help with approaching 2.0 release and
> > > take
> > > > > > care of one of the sub-tasks that must be included in 2.0:
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4547 <
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4547>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > —
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Jan 15, 2017, at 9:02 PM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This issue was created long ago. Is still relevant?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > JIRA account:
> > > > > > > Username: NSAmelchev
> > > > > > > Full Name: Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2017-01-14 1:52 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <[hidden email]>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Hi Nikita,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I can’t find provided account in Ignite JIRA
> > > > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE <
> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > > > >> jira/browse/IGNITE>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Please create an account there and share with me.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> This information might be useful for you as well.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Subscribe to both dev and user lists:
> > > > > > >> https://ignite.apache.org/community/resources.html#mail-lists
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Get familiar with Ignite development process described here:
> > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > > > > Development+Process
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Instructions on how to contribute can be found here:
> > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
> > > > to+Contribute
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Project setup in Intellij IDEAL
> > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > Project+Setup
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Regards,
> > > > > > >> Denis
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> On Jan 13, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Hello everyone.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> I'd like to take IGNITE-2894. Can you assign to me?
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Username: NSAmelchev
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> --
> > > > > > >>> Best wishes,
> > > > > > >>> Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best wishes,
> > > Amelchev Nikita
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best wishes,
> Amelchev Nikita
>

[Vladimir Ozerov]

Valya,
It makes sense to have both Externalizable and Binarylizable, as user might
want to serialize object for different systems. E.g. deserialize binary
stream from Kafka in Externalizable mode, and then put it to Ignite with
Binarylizable to allow for field access without deserialization.

Nikita,
I think that Externalizable should be written in the same way as we write
fields in "raw" mode. So may be it will be enough to simply implement our
own ObjectOutput interface on top of existing BinaryWriterExImpl. Makes
sense?

Vladimir.

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Nikita,
>
> 1. Makes sense to me.
>
> 2. Externalizable object should not be written as binary with flag 103, it
> should be written in the same way it's written now. I don't see any reason
> to change the protocol. Purpose of this task it to move the logic to binary
> marshaller instead of depending on optimized marshaller, and also fully
> support handles for these objects and objects included in them. Currently
> binary marshaller and optimized marshaller use different set of handles -
> this is the main downside of current implementation.
>
> 3. I think this order is correct, but does it even make sense to implement
> both Binarylizable and Externalizable?
>
> -Val
>
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Nikita Amelchev <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello everebody.
> >
> > I would like to clarify about some moments in marshaller about custom
> > serialization.
> >
> > 1. I suggest to divide the issue into two tasks: support the
> Externalizable
> > and support the Serializable. The second task is to do as a separate
> issue.
> >
> > 2. In case the Optimized marshaller when object is the Extenalizable
> > BinaryUtils.unmarshal() return deserialize value. But if we will not use
> > Optimized marshaller and write the Extenalizable as the Object(103) it
> > return the BinaryObjectExImpl. It break testBuilderExternalizable. (If we
> > replace Externalizable to Binarilylizable it also dont work). Fix - check
> > that object is the Extenalizable and deserialize
> > manual(BinaryUtils.java:1833 in PR). We will use this fix or return
> > BinaryObjectExImpl?
> >
> > 3. What are priority if was implemented several interfaces: Binarylizable
> > -> Externalizable -> Serializable ?
> >
> > Also can you pre review this issue?
> > PR: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2160
> >
> > 2017-04-18 17:41 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
> > [hidden email]>:
> >
> > > Nikita,
> > >
> > > For Externalizable option 1 is the correct one. Externalizable objects
> > > should not be treated as binary objects.
> > >
> > > For read/writeObject, you indeed have to extend ObjectOutputStream.
> > > writeObject() is final because you should extend writeObjectOverride()
> > > instead. Take a look at ObjectOutputStream's JavaDoc and on how this is
> > > done in OptimizedObjectOutputStream. Note that ideally we need to
> > implement
> > > everything that is included in Java serialization spec, including some
> > > non-trivial stuff like PutField. I would check if it's possible to
> > somehow
> > > reuse the code that already exists in optimized marshaller as much as
> > > possible.
> > >
> > > -Val
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Nikita Amelchev <[hidden email]
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I see two ways to support the Externalizable in the BM:
> > > > 1. Add a new type constant to the GridBinaryMarshaller class etc and
> > > > read/writeExternal in the BinaryClassDescriptor.
> > > > 2. Make read/writeExternal through the BINARY type without updating
> > > > metadata.
> > > > I don't know how to make a support read/writeObject of the
> Serializable
> > > > without delegating to the OM. Because read/writeObject methods need
> the
> > > > Objectoutputstream class argument. One way is to delegate it to the
> > > > OptimizedObjectOutputStream. Second way is to extend the
> > > Objectoutputstream
> > > > in the BinaryWriterExImpl. But it is wrong way because the
> writeObject
> > is
> > > > final.
> > > >
> > > > 2017-01-19 20:46 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > > > Nikita,
> > > > >
> > > > > In my view we just need to support Externalizable and
> > > > > writeObject/readObject in BinaryMarshaller and get rid of
> delegation
> > to
> > > > > optimized marshaller. Once such classes also go through
> > > BinaryMarshaller
> > > > > streams, they will be aware of binary configuration and will share
> > the
> > > > same
> > > > > set of handles as well. This should take care of all the issues we
> > have
> > > > > here.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Val
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I have some questions about single Marshaller.
> > > > > > It seems not easy to merge OptimizedMarshaller with
> > BinaryMarshaller
> > > > and
> > > > > is
> > > > > > there any sense in it?
> > > > > > When Binary object inside Externalizable serialized with
> optimized
> > it
> > > > > > losing all benefits.
> > > > > > Will OptimizedMarshaller be supported at 2.0 version? Or to merge
> > > they
> > > > is
> > > > > > better?
> > > > > > What do you think about it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In addition, Vladimir Ozerov, I would like to hear your opinion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2017-01-17 23:32 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <[hidden email]>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Someone else added you to the contributors list in JIRA. This
> is
> > > why
> > > > I
> > > > > > > couldn’t add you for the second time. Ignite committers, please
> > > reply
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > the dev list if you add someone to the list.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nikita, yes, this ticket is still relevant. Go ahead and assign
> > it
> > > on
> > > > > > > yourself.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also please you may want to help with approaching 2.0 release
> and
> > > > take
> > > > > > > care of one of the sub-tasks that must be included in 2.0:
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4547 <
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4547>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > —
> > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Jan 15, 2017, at 9:02 PM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This issue was created long ago. Is still relevant?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > JIRA account:
> > > > > > > > Username: NSAmelchev
> > > > > > > > Full Name: Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2017-01-14 1:52 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <[hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> Hi Nikita,
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> I can’t find provided account in Ignite JIRA
> > > > > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE <
> > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > > > > >> jira/browse/IGNITE>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Please create an account there and share with me.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> This information might be useful for you as well.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Subscribe to both dev and user lists:
> > > > > > > >> https://ignite.apache.org/community/resources.html#mail-
> lists
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Get familiar with Ignite development process described here:
> > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > > > > > Development+Process
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Instructions on how to contribute can be found here:
> > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
> > > > > to+Contribute
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Project setup in Intellij IDEAL
> > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > > Project+Setup
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Regards,
> > > > > > > >> Denis
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> On Jan 13, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Hello everyone.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> I'd like to take IGNITE-2894. Can you assign to me?
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Username: NSAmelchev
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> --
> > > > > > > >>> Best wishes,
> > > > > > > >>> Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best wishes,
> > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best wishes,
> > Amelchev Nikita
> >
>

[Nikita Amelchev]

Hello, Igniters.

I am developing Externalizable interface support by BinaryMarshaller
through new type constant. BinaryMarshaller allows using BinarySerializer
to manage serialization. I need to define BinaryWriteMode in the
BinaryClassDescriptor constructor. In case of the Binarylizable interface -
serializer is ignored and BinaryWriteMode is BINARY. Can I do the same with
the Externalizable interface?

In this case, I have issues with AffinityKey: some tests have failed
because of they except serialization logic of defined the serializer
instead of Externalizable logic. What is the priority between predefined
BinarySerializer for class and implementation of Externalizable interface?

2017-08-01 13:09 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>:

> Valya,
> It makes sense to have both Externalizable and Binarylizable, as user might
> want to serialize object for different systems. E.g. deserialize binary
> stream from Kafka in Externalizable mode, and then put it to Ignite with
> Binarylizable to allow for field access without deserialization.
>
> Nikita,
> I think that Externalizable should be written in the same way as we write
> fields in "raw" mode. So may be it will be enough to simply implement our
> own ObjectOutput interface on top of existing BinaryWriterExImpl. Makes
> sense?
>
> Vladimir.
>
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Nikita,
> >
> > 1. Makes sense to me.
> >
> > 2. Externalizable object should not be written as binary with flag 103,
> it
> > should be written in the same way it's written now. I don't see any
> reason
> > to change the protocol. Purpose of this task it to move the logic to
> binary
> > marshaller instead of depending on optimized marshaller, and also fully
> > support handles for these objects and objects included in them. Currently
> > binary marshaller and optimized marshaller use different set of handles -
> > this is the main downside of current implementation.
> >
> > 3. I think this order is correct, but does it even make sense to
> implement
> > both Binarylizable and Externalizable?
> >
> > -Val
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Nikita Amelchev <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello everebody.
> > >
> > > I would like to clarify about some moments in marshaller about custom
> > > serialization.
> > >
> > > 1. I suggest to divide the issue into two tasks: support the
> > Externalizable
> > > and support the Serializable. The second task is to do as a separate
> > issue.
> > >
> > > 2. In case the Optimized marshaller when object is the Extenalizable
> > > BinaryUtils.unmarshal() return deserialize value. But if we will not
> use
> > > Optimized marshaller and write the Extenalizable as the Object(103) it
> > > return the BinaryObjectExImpl. It break testBuilderExternalizable. (If
> we
> > > replace Externalizable to Binarilylizable it also dont work). Fix -
> check
> > > that object is the Extenalizable and deserialize
> > > manual(BinaryUtils.java:1833 in PR). We will use this fix or return
> > > BinaryObjectExImpl?
> > >
> > > 3. What are priority if was implemented several interfaces:
> Binarylizable
> > > -> Externalizable -> Serializable ?
> > >
> > > Also can you pre review this issue?
> > > PR: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2160
> > >
> > > 2017-04-18 17:41 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > [hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > > Nikita,
> > > >
> > > > For Externalizable option 1 is the correct one. Externalizable
> objects
> > > > should not be treated as binary objects.
> > > >
> > > > For read/writeObject, you indeed have to extend ObjectOutputStream.
> > > > writeObject() is final because you should extend
> writeObjectOverride()
> > > > instead. Take a look at ObjectOutputStream's JavaDoc and on how this
> is
> > > > done in OptimizedObjectOutputStream. Note that ideally we need to
> > > implement
> > > > everything that is included in Java serialization spec, including
> some
> > > > non-trivial stuff like PutField. I would check if it's possible to
> > > somehow
> > > > reuse the code that already exists in optimized marshaller as much as
> > > > possible.
> > > >
> > > > -Val
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Nikita Amelchev <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I see two ways to support the Externalizable in the BM:
> > > > > 1. Add a new type constant to the GridBinaryMarshaller class etc
> and
> > > > > read/writeExternal in the BinaryClassDescriptor.
> > > > > 2. Make read/writeExternal through the BINARY type without updating
> > > > > metadata.
> > > > > I don't know how to make a support read/writeObject of the
> > Serializable
> > > > > without delegating to the OM. Because read/writeObject methods need
> > the
> > > > > Objectoutputstream class argument. One way is to delegate it to the
> > > > > OptimizedObjectOutputStream. Second way is to extend the
> > > > Objectoutputstream
> > > > > in the BinaryWriterExImpl. But it is wrong way because the
> > writeObject
> > > is
> > > > > final.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2017-01-19 20:46 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Nikita,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In my view we just need to support Externalizable and
> > > > > > writeObject/readObject in BinaryMarshaller and get rid of
> > delegation
> > > to
> > > > > > optimized marshaller. Once such classes also go through
> > > > BinaryMarshaller
> > > > > > streams, they will be aware of binary configuration and will
> share
> > > the
> > > > > same
> > > > > > set of handles as well. This should take care of all the issues
> we
> > > have
> > > > > > here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Val
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have some questions about single Marshaller.
> > > > > > > It seems not easy to merge OptimizedMarshaller with
> > > BinaryMarshaller
> > > > > and
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > there any sense in it?
> > > > > > > When Binary object inside Externalizable serialized with
> > optimized
> > > it
> > > > > > > losing all benefits.
> > > > > > > Will OptimizedMarshaller be supported at 2.0 version? Or to
> merge
> > > > they
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > better?
> > > > > > > What do you think about it?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In addition, Vladimir Ozerov, I would like to hear your
> opinion.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2017-01-17 23:32 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <[hidden email]>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Someone else added you to the contributors list in JIRA. This
> > is
> > > > why
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > > couldn’t add you for the second time. Ignite committers,
> please
> > > > reply
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > the dev list if you add someone to the list.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nikita, yes, this ticket is still relevant. Go ahead and
> assign
> > > it
> > > > on
> > > > > > > > yourself.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also please you may want to help with approaching 2.0 release
> > and
> > > > > take
> > > > > > > > care of one of the sub-tasks that must be included in 2.0:
> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4547 <
> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4547>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > —
> > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Jan 15, 2017, at 9:02 PM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This issue was created long ago. Is still relevant?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > JIRA account:
> > > > > > > > > Username: NSAmelchev
> > > > > > > > > Full Name: Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2017-01-14 1:52 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <[hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> Hi Nikita,
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> I can’t find provided account in Ignite JIRA
> > > > > > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE <
> > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > > > > > >> jira/browse/IGNITE>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Please create an account there and share with me.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> This information might be useful for you as well.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Subscribe to both dev and user lists:
> > > > > > > > >> https://ignite.apache.org/community/resources.html#mail-
> > lists
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Get familiar with Ignite development process described
> here:
> > > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > > > > > > Development+Process
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Instructions on how to contribute can be found here:
> > > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
> > > > > > to+Contribute
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Project setup in Intellij IDEAL
> > > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > > > Project+Setup
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Regards,
> > > > > > > > >> Denis
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>> On Jan 13, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> Hello everyone.
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> I'd like to take IGNITE-2894. Can you assign to me?
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> Username: NSAmelchev
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> --
> > > > > > > > >>> Best wishes,
> > > > > > > > >>> Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best wishes,
> > > Amelchev Nikita
> > >
> >
>

--
Best wishes,
Amelchev Nikita

[Valentin Kulichenko]

Nikita,

I think anything binary related should have higher priority than
Externalizable. I.e. if user explicitly implemented Binarylizable or
provided a BinarySerializer, then BinaryMarshaller should of course use
that and ignore Externalizable.

-Val

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Nikita Amelchev <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hello, Igniters.
>
> I am developing Externalizable interface support by BinaryMarshaller
> through new type constant. BinaryMarshaller allows using BinarySerializer
> to manage serialization. I need to define BinaryWriteMode in the
> BinaryClassDescriptor constructor. In case of the Binarylizable interface -
> serializer is ignored and BinaryWriteMode is BINARY. Can I do the same with
> the Externalizable interface?
>
> In this case, I have issues with AffinityKey: some tests have failed
> because of they except serialization logic of defined the serializer
> instead of Externalizable logic. What is the priority between predefined
> BinarySerializer for class and implementation of Externalizable interface?
>
> 2017-08-01 13:09 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Valya,
> > It makes sense to have both Externalizable and Binarylizable, as user
> might
> > want to serialize object for different systems. E.g. deserialize binary
> > stream from Kafka in Externalizable mode, and then put it to Ignite with
> > Binarylizable to allow for field access without deserialization.
> >
> > Nikita,
> > I think that Externalizable should be written in the same way as we write
> > fields in "raw" mode. So may be it will be enough to simply implement our
> > own ObjectOutput interface on top of existing BinaryWriterExImpl. Makes
> > sense?
> >
> > Vladimir.
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Nikita,
> > >
> > > 1. Makes sense to me.
> > >
> > > 2. Externalizable object should not be written as binary with flag 103,
> > it
> > > should be written in the same way it's written now. I don't see any
> > reason
> > > to change the protocol. Purpose of this task it to move the logic to
> > binary
> > > marshaller instead of depending on optimized marshaller, and also fully
> > > support handles for these objects and objects included in them.
> Currently
> > > binary marshaller and optimized marshaller use different set of
> handles -
> > > this is the main downside of current implementation.
> > >
> > > 3. I think this order is correct, but does it even make sense to
> > implement
> > > both Binarylizable and Externalizable?
> > >
> > > -Val
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Nikita Amelchev <[hidden email]
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello everebody.
> > > >
> > > > I would like to clarify about some moments in marshaller about custom
> > > > serialization.
> > > >
> > > > 1. I suggest to divide the issue into two tasks: support the
> > > Externalizable
> > > > and support the Serializable. The second task is to do as a separate
> > > issue.
> > > >
> > > > 2. In case the Optimized marshaller when object is the Extenalizable
> > > > BinaryUtils.unmarshal() return deserialize value. But if we will not
> > use
> > > > Optimized marshaller and write the Extenalizable as the Object(103)
> it
> > > > return the BinaryObjectExImpl. It break testBuilderExternalizable.
> (If
> > we
> > > > replace Externalizable to Binarilylizable it also dont work). Fix -
> > check
> > > > that object is the Extenalizable and deserialize
> > > > manual(BinaryUtils.java:1833 in PR). We will use this fix or return
> > > > BinaryObjectExImpl?
> > > >
> > > > 3. What are priority if was implemented several interfaces:
> > Binarylizable
> > > > -> Externalizable -> Serializable ?
> > > >
> > > > Also can you pre review this issue?
> > > > PR: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2160
> > > >
> > > > 2017-04-18 17:41 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > > > Nikita,
> > > > >
> > > > > For Externalizable option 1 is the correct one. Externalizable
> > objects
> > > > > should not be treated as binary objects.
> > > > >
> > > > > For read/writeObject, you indeed have to extend ObjectOutputStream.
> > > > > writeObject() is final because you should extend
> > writeObjectOverride()
> > > > > instead. Take a look at ObjectOutputStream's JavaDoc and on how
> this
> > is
> > > > > done in OptimizedObjectOutputStream. Note that ideally we need to
> > > > implement
> > > > > everything that is included in Java serialization spec, including
> > some
> > > > > non-trivial stuff like PutField. I would check if it's possible to
> > > > somehow
> > > > > reuse the code that already exists in optimized marshaller as much
> as
> > > > > possible.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Val
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I see two ways to support the Externalizable in the BM:
> > > > > > 1. Add a new type constant to the GridBinaryMarshaller class etc
> > and
> > > > > > read/writeExternal in the BinaryClassDescriptor.
> > > > > > 2. Make read/writeExternal through the BINARY type without
> updating
> > > > > > metadata.
> > > > > > I don't know how to make a support read/writeObject of the
> > > Serializable
> > > > > > without delegating to the OM. Because read/writeObject methods
> need
> > > the
> > > > > > Objectoutputstream class argument. One way is to delegate it to
> the
> > > > > > OptimizedObjectOutputStream. Second way is to extend the
> > > > > Objectoutputstream
> > > > > > in the BinaryWriterExImpl. But it is wrong way because the
> > > writeObject
> > > > is
> > > > > > final.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2017-01-19 20:46 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nikita,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In my view we just need to support Externalizable and
> > > > > > > writeObject/readObject in BinaryMarshaller and get rid of
> > > delegation
> > > > to
> > > > > > > optimized marshaller. Once such classes also go through
> > > > > BinaryMarshaller
> > > > > > > streams, they will be aware of binary configuration and will
> > share
> > > > the
> > > > > > same
> > > > > > > set of handles as well. This should take care of all the issues
> > we
> > > > have
> > > > > > > here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Val
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have some questions about single Marshaller.
> > > > > > > > It seems not easy to merge OptimizedMarshaller with
> > > > BinaryMarshaller
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > there any sense in it?
> > > > > > > > When Binary object inside Externalizable serialized with
> > > optimized
> > > > it
> > > > > > > > losing all benefits.
> > > > > > > > Will OptimizedMarshaller be supported at 2.0 version? Or to
> > merge
> > > > > they
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > better?
> > > > > > > > What do you think about it?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In addition, Vladimir Ozerov, I would like to hear your
> > opinion.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2017-01-17 23:32 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <[hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Someone else added you to the contributors list in JIRA.
> This
> > > is
> > > > > why
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > couldn’t add you for the second time. Ignite committers,
> > please
> > > > > reply
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > the dev list if you add someone to the list.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Nikita, yes, this ticket is still relevant. Go ahead and
> > assign
> > > > it
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > yourself.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Also please you may want to help with approaching 2.0
> release
> > > and
> > > > > > take
> > > > > > > > > care of one of the sub-tasks that must be included in 2.0:
> > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4547 <
> > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4547>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > —
> > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Jan 15, 2017, at 9:02 PM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This issue was created long ago. Is still relevant?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > JIRA account:
> > > > > > > > > > Username: NSAmelchev
> > > > > > > > > > Full Name: Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 2017-01-14 1:52 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <[hidden email]
> >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> Hi Nikita,
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> I can’t find provided account in Ignite JIRA
> > > > > > > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE <
> > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > > > > > > >> jira/browse/IGNITE>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Please create an account there and share with me.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> This information might be useful for you as well.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Subscribe to both dev and user lists:
> > > > > > > > > >> https://ignite.apache.org/
> community/resources.html#mail-
> > > lists
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Get familiar with Ignite development process described
> > here:
> > > > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > > > > > > > Development+Process
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Instructions on how to contribute can be found here:
> > > > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
> > > > > > > to+Contribute
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Project setup in Intellij IDEAL
> > > > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > > > > Project+Setup
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Regards,
> > > > > > > > > >> Denis
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>> On Jan 13, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Hello everyone.
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> I'd like to take IGNITE-2894. Can you assign to me?
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Username: NSAmelchev
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> --
> > > > > > > > > >>> Best wishes,
> > > > > > > > > >>> Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best wishes,
> > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best wishes,
> Amelchev Nikita
>

[Nikita Amelchev]

Hello, Igniters!

I've developed Externalizable interface support using BinaryMarshaller [1].

I have a misunderstanding with defining BinaryWriteMode in
BinaryUtils.mode(cls): there is AffinityKey class which implements
Externalizable and registered with ReflectiveSerialize, BinaryMarshaller
defines it as BinaryWriteMode.OBJ and uses reflection according to current
logic. I want to say that AffinityKey must be defined as
BinaryWriteMode.OBJ although the class implements the Externalizable
interface.
I have to add a new one more parameter in BinaryUtils.mode(cls) to define
BinaryWriteMode in a proper way.
Could you please review and comment my solution [2]?

BTW, I have benchmarked my solution by GridMarshallerPerformanceTest and it
becomes faster up to 2 times (GridMarshaller).My JMH tests show that
marshal faster up to 50% and unmarshal faster up to 100% on an
Externalizable object.

Also, I've filed an issue for Serializable interface support using
BinaryMarshaller [3] as it has been described earlier.

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2894
[2] https://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-278
[3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6172

2017-08-21 20:43 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
[hidden email]>:

> Nikita,
>
> I think anything binary related should have higher priority than
> Externalizable. I.e. if user explicitly implemented Binarylizable or
> provided a BinarySerializer, then BinaryMarshaller should of course use
> that and ignore Externalizable.
>
> -Val
>
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Nikita Amelchev <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello, Igniters.
> >
> > I am developing Externalizable interface support by BinaryMarshaller
> > through new type constant. BinaryMarshaller allows using BinarySerializer
> > to manage serialization. I need to define BinaryWriteMode in the
> > BinaryClassDescriptor constructor. In case of the Binarylizable
> interface -
> > serializer is ignored and BinaryWriteMode is BINARY. Can I do the same
> with
> > the Externalizable interface?
> >
> > In this case, I have issues with AffinityKey: some tests have failed
> > because of they except serialization logic of defined the serializer
> > instead of Externalizable logic. What is the priority between predefined
> > BinarySerializer for class and implementation of Externalizable
> interface?
> >
> > 2017-08-01 13:09 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > Valya,
> > > It makes sense to have both Externalizable and Binarylizable, as user
> > might
> > > want to serialize object for different systems. E.g. deserialize binary
> > > stream from Kafka in Externalizable mode, and then put it to Ignite
> with
> > > Binarylizable to allow for field access without deserialization.
> > >
> > > Nikita,
> > > I think that Externalizable should be written in the same way as we
> write
> > > fields in "raw" mode. So may be it will be enough to simply implement
> our
> > > own ObjectOutput interface on top of existing BinaryWriterExImpl. Makes
> > > sense?
> > >
> > > Vladimir.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Nikita,
> > > >
> > > > 1. Makes sense to me.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Externalizable object should not be written as binary with flag
> 103,
> > > it
> > > > should be written in the same way it's written now. I don't see any
> > > reason
> > > > to change the protocol. Purpose of this task it to move the logic to
> > > binary
> > > > marshaller instead of depending on optimized marshaller, and also
> fully
> > > > support handles for these objects and objects included in them.
> > Currently
> > > > binary marshaller and optimized marshaller use different set of
> > handles -
> > > > this is the main downside of current implementation.
> > > >
> > > > 3. I think this order is correct, but does it even make sense to
> > > implement
> > > > both Binarylizable and Externalizable?
> > > >
> > > > -Val
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello everebody.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to clarify about some moments in marshaller about
> custom
> > > > > serialization.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. I suggest to divide the issue into two tasks: support the
> > > > Externalizable
> > > > > and support the Serializable. The second task is to do as a
> separate
> > > > issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. In case the Optimized marshaller when object is the
> Extenalizable
> > > > > BinaryUtils.unmarshal() return deserialize value. But if we will
> not
> > > use
> > > > > Optimized marshaller and write the Extenalizable as the Object(103)
> > it
> > > > > return the BinaryObjectExImpl. It break testBuilderExternalizable.
> > (If
> > > we
> > > > > replace Externalizable to Binarilylizable it also dont work). Fix -
> > > check
> > > > > that object is the Extenalizable and deserialize
> > > > > manual(BinaryUtils.java:1833 in PR). We will use this fix or return
> > > > > BinaryObjectExImpl?
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. What are priority if was implemented several interfaces:
> > > Binarylizable
> > > > > -> Externalizable -> Serializable ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Also can you pre review this issue?
> > > > > PR: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2160
> > > > >
> > > > > 2017-04-18 17:41 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Nikita,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For Externalizable option 1 is the correct one. Externalizable
> > > objects
> > > > > > should not be treated as binary objects.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For read/writeObject, you indeed have to extend
> ObjectOutputStream.
> > > > > > writeObject() is final because you should extend
> > > writeObjectOverride()
> > > > > > instead. Take a look at ObjectOutputStream's JavaDoc and on how
> > this
> > > is
> > > > > > done in OptimizedObjectOutputStream. Note that ideally we need to
> > > > > implement
> > > > > > everything that is included in Java serialization spec, including
> > > some
> > > > > > non-trivial stuff like PutField. I would check if it's possible
> to
> > > > > somehow
> > > > > > reuse the code that already exists in optimized marshaller as
> much
> > as
> > > > > > possible.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Val
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I see two ways to support the Externalizable in the BM:
> > > > > > > 1. Add a new type constant to the GridBinaryMarshaller class
> etc
> > > and
> > > > > > > read/writeExternal in the BinaryClassDescriptor.
> > > > > > > 2. Make read/writeExternal through the BINARY type without
> > updating
> > > > > > > metadata.
> > > > > > > I don't know how to make a support read/writeObject of the
> > > > Serializable
> > > > > > > without delegating to the OM. Because read/writeObject methods
> > need
> > > > the
> > > > > > > Objectoutputstream class argument. One way is to delegate it to
> > the
> > > > > > > OptimizedObjectOutputStream. Second way is to extend the
> > > > > > Objectoutputstream
> > > > > > > in the BinaryWriterExImpl. But it is wrong way because the
> > > > writeObject
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > final.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2017-01-19 20:46 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nikita,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In my view we just need to support Externalizable and
> > > > > > > > writeObject/readObject in BinaryMarshaller and get rid of
> > > > delegation
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > optimized marshaller. Once such classes also go through
> > > > > > BinaryMarshaller
> > > > > > > > streams, they will be aware of binary configuration and will
> > > share
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > set of handles as well. This should take care of all the
> issues
> > > we
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > > here.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -Val
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I have some questions about single Marshaller.
> > > > > > > > > It seems not easy to merge OptimizedMarshaller with
> > > > > BinaryMarshaller
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > there any sense in it?
> > > > > > > > > When Binary object inside Externalizable serialized with
> > > > optimized
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > losing all benefits.
> > > > > > > > > Will OptimizedMarshaller be supported at 2.0 version? Or to
> > > merge
> > > > > > they
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > better?
> > > > > > > > > What do you think about it?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In addition, Vladimir Ozerov, I would like to hear your
> > > opinion.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2017-01-17 23:32 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <[hidden email]
> >:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Someone else added you to the contributors list in JIRA.
> > This
> > > > is
> > > > > > why
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > couldn’t add you for the second time. Ignite committers,
> > > please
> > > > > > reply
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > the dev list if you add someone to the list.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Nikita, yes, this ticket is still relevant. Go ahead and
> > > assign
> > > > > it
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > yourself.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Also please you may want to help with approaching 2.0
> > release
> > > > and
> > > > > > > take
> > > > > > > > > > care of one of the sub-tasks that must be included in
> 2.0:
> > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4547 <
> > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4547>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > —
> > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 15, 2017, at 9:02 PM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This issue was created long ago. Is still relevant?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > JIRA account:
> > > > > > > > > > > Username: NSAmelchev
> > > > > > > > > > > Full Name: Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 2017-01-14 1:52 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <
> [hidden email]
> > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Nikita,
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> I can’t find provided account in Ignite JIRA
> > > > > > > > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE <
> > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > > > > > > > >> jira/browse/IGNITE>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Please create an account there and share with me.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> This information might be useful for you as well.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Subscribe to both dev and user lists:
> > > > > > > > > > >> https://ignite.apache.org/
> > community/resources.html#mail-
> > > > lists
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Get familiar with Ignite development process described
> > > here:
> > > > > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > > > > > > > > Development+Process
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Instructions on how to contribute can be found here:
> > > > > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/
> confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
> > > > > > > > to+Contribute
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Project setup in Intellij IDEAL
> > > > > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > > > > > Project+Setup
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > >> Denis
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> On Jan 13, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> Hello everyone.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> I'd like to take IGNITE-2894. Can you assign to me?
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> Username: NSAmelchev
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> --
> > > > > > > > > > >>> Best wishes,
> > > > > > > > > > >>> Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best wishes,
> > Amelchev Nikita
> >
>

--
Best wishes,
Amelchev Nikita

[Vladimir Ozerov]

Folks,

Let's discuss how this should be handled properly. I proposed to use the
same format as regular binary object, with all data being written in "raw"
form. This would give us one critical advantage - we will be able to work
with such objects without deserialization on the server. Hence, no classes
will be needed on the server side. Current implementation (see PR in the
ticket) defines separate format which require deserialization, I am not OK
with it.

Thoughts?

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Nikita Amelchev <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hello, Igniters!
>
> I've developed Externalizable interface support using BinaryMarshaller [1].
>
> I have a misunderstanding with defining BinaryWriteMode in
> BinaryUtils.mode(cls): there is AffinityKey class which implements
> Externalizable and registered with ReflectiveSerialize, BinaryMarshaller
> defines it as BinaryWriteMode.OBJ and uses reflection according to current
> logic. I want to say that AffinityKey must be defined as
> BinaryWriteMode.OBJ although the class implements the Externalizable
> interface.
> I have to add a new one more parameter in BinaryUtils.mode(cls) to define
> BinaryWriteMode in a proper way.
> Could you please review and comment my solution [2]?
>
> BTW, I have benchmarked my solution by GridMarshallerPerformanceTest and it
> becomes faster up to 2 times (GridMarshaller).My JMH tests show that
> marshal faster up to 50% and unmarshal faster up to 100% on an
> Externalizable object.
>
> Also, I've filed an issue for Serializable interface support using
> BinaryMarshaller [3] as it has been described earlier.
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2894
> [2] https://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-278
> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6172
>
> 2017-08-21 20:43 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
> [hidden email]>:
>
> > Nikita,
> >
> > I think anything binary related should have higher priority than
> > Externalizable. I.e. if user explicitly implemented Binarylizable or
> > provided a BinarySerializer, then BinaryMarshaller should of course use
> > that and ignore Externalizable.
> >
> > -Val
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Nikita Amelchev <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello, Igniters.
> > >
> > > I am developing Externalizable interface support by BinaryMarshaller
> > > through new type constant. BinaryMarshaller allows using
> BinarySerializer
> > > to manage serialization. I need to define BinaryWriteMode in the
> > > BinaryClassDescriptor constructor. In case of the Binarylizable
> > interface -
> > > serializer is ignored and BinaryWriteMode is BINARY. Can I do the same
> > with
> > > the Externalizable interface?
> > >
> > > In this case, I have issues with AffinityKey: some tests have failed
> > > because of they except serialization logic of defined the serializer
> > > instead of Externalizable logic. What is the priority between
> predefined
> > > BinarySerializer for class and implementation of Externalizable
> > interface?
> > >
> > > 2017-08-01 13:09 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > > Valya,
> > > > It makes sense to have both Externalizable and Binarylizable, as user
> > > might
> > > > want to serialize object for different systems. E.g. deserialize
> binary
> > > > stream from Kafka in Externalizable mode, and then put it to Ignite
> > with
> > > > Binarylizable to allow for field access without deserialization.
> > > >
> > > > Nikita,
> > > > I think that Externalizable should be written in the same way as we
> > write
> > > > fields in "raw" mode. So may be it will be enough to simply implement
> > our
> > > > own ObjectOutput interface on top of existing BinaryWriterExImpl.
> Makes
> > > > sense?
> > > >
> > > > Vladimir.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Nikita,
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Makes sense to me.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. Externalizable object should not be written as binary with flag
> > 103,
> > > > it
> > > > > should be written in the same way it's written now. I don't see any
> > > > reason
> > > > > to change the protocol. Purpose of this task it to move the logic
> to
> > > > binary
> > > > > marshaller instead of depending on optimized marshaller, and also
> > fully
> > > > > support handles for these objects and objects included in them.
> > > Currently
> > > > > binary marshaller and optimized marshaller use different set of
> > > handles -
> > > > > this is the main downside of current implementation.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. I think this order is correct, but does it even make sense to
> > > > implement
> > > > > both Binarylizable and Externalizable?
> > > > >
> > > > > -Val
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello everebody.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would like to clarify about some moments in marshaller about
> > custom
> > > > > > serialization.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. I suggest to divide the issue into two tasks: support the
> > > > > Externalizable
> > > > > > and support the Serializable. The second task is to do as a
> > separate
> > > > > issue.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. In case the Optimized marshaller when object is the
> > Extenalizable
> > > > > > BinaryUtils.unmarshal() return deserialize value. But if we will
> > not
> > > > use
> > > > > > Optimized marshaller and write the Extenalizable as the
> Object(103)
> > > it
> > > > > > return the BinaryObjectExImpl. It break
> testBuilderExternalizable.
> > > (If
> > > > we
> > > > > > replace Externalizable to Binarilylizable it also dont work).
> Fix -
> > > > check
> > > > > > that object is the Extenalizable and deserialize
> > > > > > manual(BinaryUtils.java:1833 in PR). We will use this fix or
> return
> > > > > > BinaryObjectExImpl?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3. What are priority if was implemented several interfaces:
> > > > Binarylizable
> > > > > > -> Externalizable -> Serializable ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also can you pre review this issue?
> > > > > > PR: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2160
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2017-04-18 17:41 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nikita,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For Externalizable option 1 is the correct one. Externalizable
> > > > objects
> > > > > > > should not be treated as binary objects.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For read/writeObject, you indeed have to extend
> > ObjectOutputStream.
> > > > > > > writeObject() is final because you should extend
> > > > writeObjectOverride()
> > > > > > > instead. Take a look at ObjectOutputStream's JavaDoc and on how
> > > this
> > > > is
> > > > > > > done in OptimizedObjectOutputStream. Note that ideally we need
> to
> > > > > > implement
> > > > > > > everything that is included in Java serialization spec,
> including
> > > > some
> > > > > > > non-trivial stuff like PutField. I would check if it's possible
> > to
> > > > > > somehow
> > > > > > > reuse the code that already exists in optimized marshaller as
> > much
> > > as
> > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Val
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I see two ways to support the Externalizable in the BM:
> > > > > > > > 1. Add a new type constant to the GridBinaryMarshaller class
> > etc
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > read/writeExternal in the BinaryClassDescriptor.
> > > > > > > > 2. Make read/writeExternal through the BINARY type without
> > > updating
> > > > > > > > metadata.
> > > > > > > > I don't know how to make a support read/writeObject of the
> > > > > Serializable
> > > > > > > > without delegating to the OM. Because read/writeObject
> methods
> > > need
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > Objectoutputstream class argument. One way is to delegate it
> to
> > > the
> > > > > > > > OptimizedObjectOutputStream. Second way is to extend the
> > > > > > > Objectoutputstream
> > > > > > > > in the BinaryWriterExImpl. But it is wrong way because the
> > > > > writeObject
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > final.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2017-01-19 20:46 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Nikita,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In my view we just need to support Externalizable and
> > > > > > > > > writeObject/readObject in BinaryMarshaller and get rid of
> > > > > delegation
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > optimized marshaller. Once such classes also go through
> > > > > > > BinaryMarshaller
> > > > > > > > > streams, they will be aware of binary configuration and
> will
> > > > share
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > set of handles as well. This should take care of all the
> > issues
> > > > we
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > here.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -Val
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I have some questions about single Marshaller.
> > > > > > > > > > It seems not easy to merge OptimizedMarshaller with
> > > > > > BinaryMarshaller
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > there any sense in it?
> > > > > > > > > > When Binary object inside Externalizable serialized with
> > > > > optimized
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > losing all benefits.
> > > > > > > > > > Will OptimizedMarshaller be supported at 2.0 version? Or
> to
> > > > merge
> > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > better?
> > > > > > > > > > What do you think about it?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > In addition, Vladimir Ozerov, I would like to hear your
> > > > opinion.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 2017-01-17 23:32 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <
> [hidden email]
> > >:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Someone else added you to the contributors list in
> JIRA.
> > > This
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > couldn’t add you for the second time. Ignite
> committers,
> > > > please
> > > > > > > reply
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > the dev list if you add someone to the list.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Nikita, yes, this ticket is still relevant. Go ahead
> and
> > > > assign
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > yourself.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Also please you may want to help with approaching 2.0
> > > release
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > take
> > > > > > > > > > > care of one of the sub-tasks that must be included in
> > 2.0:
> > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4547 <
> > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4547>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > —
> > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 15, 2017, at 9:02 PM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > This issue was created long ago. Is still relevant?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > JIRA account:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Username: NSAmelchev
> > > > > > > > > > > > Full Name: Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-01-14 1:52 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Nikita,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> I can’t find provided account in Ignite JIRA
> > > > > > > > > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE <
> > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > > > > > > > > >> jira/browse/IGNITE>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Please create an account there and share with me.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> This information might be useful for you as well.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Subscribe to both dev and user lists:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> https://ignite.apache.org/
> > > community/resources.html#mail-
> > > > > lists
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Get familiar with Ignite development process
> described
> > > > here:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > > > > > > > > > Development+Process
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Instructions on how to contribute can be found here:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
> > > > > > > > > to+Contribute
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Project setup in Intellij IDEAL
> > > > > > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > > > > > > Project+Setup
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Jan 13, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hello everyone.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> I'd like to take IGNITE-2894. Can you assign to me?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Username: NSAmelchev
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Best wishes,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best wishes,
> > > Amelchev Nikita
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best wishes,
> Amelchev Nikita
>

[dsetrakyan]

Vova, I agree. Let's stay loyal to our binary serialization protocol.

Do you know if we will be loosing any functionality available in
Externalizable, but not present in our binary protocol?

D.

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 11:38 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Folks,
>
> Let's discuss how this should be handled properly. I proposed to use the
> same format as regular binary object, with all data being written in "raw"
> form. This would give us one critical advantage - we will be able to work
> with such objects without deserialization on the server. Hence, no classes
> will be needed on the server side. Current implementation (see PR in the
> ticket) defines separate format which require deserialization, I am not OK
> with it.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Nikita Amelchev <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello, Igniters!
> >
> > I've developed Externalizable interface support using BinaryMarshaller
> [1].
> >
> > I have a misunderstanding with defining BinaryWriteMode in
> > BinaryUtils.mode(cls): there is AffinityKey class which implements
> > Externalizable and registered with ReflectiveSerialize, BinaryMarshaller
> > defines it as BinaryWriteMode.OBJ and uses reflection according to
> current
> > logic. I want to say that AffinityKey must be defined as
> > BinaryWriteMode.OBJ although the class implements the Externalizable
> > interface.
> > I have to add a new one more parameter in BinaryUtils.mode(cls) to define
> > BinaryWriteMode in a proper way.
> > Could you please review and comment my solution [2]?
> >
> > BTW, I have benchmarked my solution by GridMarshallerPerformanceTest and
> it
> > becomes faster up to 2 times (GridMarshaller).My JMH tests show that
> > marshal faster up to 50% and unmarshal faster up to 100% on an
> > Externalizable object.
> >
> > Also, I've filed an issue for Serializable interface support using
> > BinaryMarshaller [3] as it has been described earlier.
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2894
> > [2] https://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-278
> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6172
> >
> > 2017-08-21 20:43 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
> > [hidden email]>:
> >
> > > Nikita,
> > >
> > > I think anything binary related should have higher priority than
> > > Externalizable. I.e. if user explicitly implemented Binarylizable or
> > > provided a BinarySerializer, then BinaryMarshaller should of course use
> > > that and ignore Externalizable.
> > >
> > > -Val
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Nikita Amelchev <[hidden email]
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > >
> > > > I am developing Externalizable interface support by BinaryMarshaller
> > > > through new type constant. BinaryMarshaller allows using
> > BinarySerializer
> > > > to manage serialization. I need to define BinaryWriteMode in the
> > > > BinaryClassDescriptor constructor. In case of the Binarylizable
> > > interface -
> > > > serializer is ignored and BinaryWriteMode is BINARY. Can I do the
> same
> > > with
> > > > the Externalizable interface?
> > > >
> > > > In this case, I have issues with AffinityKey: some tests have failed
> > > > because of they except serialization logic of defined the serializer
> > > > instead of Externalizable logic. What is the priority between
> > predefined
> > > > BinarySerializer for class and implementation of Externalizable
> > > interface?
> > > >
> > > > 2017-08-01 13:09 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > > > Valya,
> > > > > It makes sense to have both Externalizable and Binarylizable, as
> user
> > > > might
> > > > > want to serialize object for different systems. E.g. deserialize
> > binary
> > > > > stream from Kafka in Externalizable mode, and then put it to Ignite
> > > with
> > > > > Binarylizable to allow for field access without deserialization.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nikita,
> > > > > I think that Externalizable should be written in the same way as we
> > > write
> > > > > fields in "raw" mode. So may be it will be enough to simply
> implement
> > > our
> > > > > own ObjectOutput interface on top of existing BinaryWriterExImpl.
> > Makes
> > > > > sense?
> > > > >
> > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Nikita,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Makes sense to me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. Externalizable object should not be written as binary with
> flag
> > > 103,
> > > > > it
> > > > > > should be written in the same way it's written now. I don't see
> any
> > > > > reason
> > > > > > to change the protocol. Purpose of this task it to move the logic
> > to
> > > > > binary
> > > > > > marshaller instead of depending on optimized marshaller, and also
> > > fully
> > > > > > support handles for these objects and objects included in them.
> > > > Currently
> > > > > > binary marshaller and optimized marshaller use different set of
> > > > handles -
> > > > > > this is the main downside of current implementation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3. I think this order is correct, but does it even make sense to
> > > > > implement
> > > > > > both Binarylizable and Externalizable?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Val
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello everebody.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would like to clarify about some moments in marshaller about
> > > custom
> > > > > > > serialization.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. I suggest to divide the issue into two tasks: support the
> > > > > > Externalizable
> > > > > > > and support the Serializable. The second task is to do as a
> > > separate
> > > > > > issue.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2. In case the Optimized marshaller when object is the
> > > Extenalizable
> > > > > > > BinaryUtils.unmarshal() return deserialize value. But if we
> will
> > > not
> > > > > use
> > > > > > > Optimized marshaller and write the Extenalizable as the
> > Object(103)
> > > > it
> > > > > > > return the BinaryObjectExImpl. It break
> > testBuilderExternalizable.
> > > > (If
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > replace Externalizable to Binarilylizable it also dont work).
> > Fix -
> > > > > check
> > > > > > > that object is the Extenalizable and deserialize
> > > > > > > manual(BinaryUtils.java:1833 in PR). We will use this fix or
> > return
> > > > > > > BinaryObjectExImpl?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3. What are priority if was implemented several interfaces:
> > > > > Binarylizable
> > > > > > > -> Externalizable -> Serializable ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also can you pre review this issue?
> > > > > > > PR: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2160
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2017-04-18 17:41 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nikita,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For Externalizable option 1 is the correct one.
> Externalizable
> > > > > objects
> > > > > > > > should not be treated as binary objects.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For read/writeObject, you indeed have to extend
> > > ObjectOutputStream.
> > > > > > > > writeObject() is final because you should extend
> > > > > writeObjectOverride()
> > > > > > > > instead. Take a look at ObjectOutputStream's JavaDoc and on
> how
> > > > this
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > done in OptimizedObjectOutputStream. Note that ideally we
> need
> > to
> > > > > > > implement
> > > > > > > > everything that is included in Java serialization spec,
> > including
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > > non-trivial stuff like PutField. I would check if it's
> possible
> > > to
> > > > > > > somehow
> > > > > > > > reuse the code that already exists in optimized marshaller as
> > > much
> > > > as
> > > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -Val
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I see two ways to support the Externalizable in the BM:
> > > > > > > > > 1. Add a new type constant to the GridBinaryMarshaller
> class
> > > etc
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > read/writeExternal in the BinaryClassDescriptor.
> > > > > > > > > 2. Make read/writeExternal through the BINARY type without
> > > > updating
> > > > > > > > > metadata.
> > > > > > > > > I don't know how to make a support read/writeObject of the
> > > > > > Serializable
> > > > > > > > > without delegating to the OM. Because read/writeObject
> > methods
> > > > need
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > Objectoutputstream class argument. One way is to delegate
> it
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > OptimizedObjectOutputStream. Second way is to extend the
> > > > > > > > Objectoutputstream
> > > > > > > > > in the BinaryWriterExImpl. But it is wrong way because the
> > > > > > writeObject
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > final.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2017-01-19 20:46 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Nikita,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > In my view we just need to support Externalizable and
> > > > > > > > > > writeObject/readObject in BinaryMarshaller and get rid of
> > > > > > delegation
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > optimized marshaller. Once such classes also go through
> > > > > > > > BinaryMarshaller
> > > > > > > > > > streams, they will be aware of binary configuration and
> > will
> > > > > share
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > > set of handles as well. This should take care of all the
> > > issues
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > here.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I have some questions about single Marshaller.
> > > > > > > > > > > It seems not easy to merge OptimizedMarshaller with
> > > > > > > BinaryMarshaller
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > there any sense in it?
> > > > > > > > > > > When Binary object inside Externalizable serialized
> with
> > > > > > optimized
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > losing all benefits.
> > > > > > > > > > > Will OptimizedMarshaller be supported at 2.0 version?
> Or
> > to
> > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > better?
> > > > > > > > > > > What do you think about it?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > In addition, Vladimir Ozerov, I would like to hear your
> > > > > opinion.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 2017-01-17 23:32 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Someone else added you to the contributors list in
> > JIRA.
> > > > This
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > couldn’t add you for the second time. Ignite
> > committers,
> > > > > please
> > > > > > > > reply
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > the dev list if you add someone to the list.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Nikita, yes, this ticket is still relevant. Go ahead
> > and
> > > > > assign
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > yourself.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Also please you may want to help with approaching 2.0
> > > > release
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > take
> > > > > > > > > > > > care of one of the sub-tasks that must be included in
> > > 2.0:
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4547 <
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4547>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > —
> > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 15, 2017, at 9:02 PM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This issue was created long ago. Is still relevant?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > JIRA account:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Username: NSAmelchev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Full Name: Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-01-14 1:52 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Nikita,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> I can’t find provided account in Ignite JIRA
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE <
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> jira/browse/IGNITE>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Please create an account there and share with me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> This information might be useful for you as well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Subscribe to both dev and user lists:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://ignite.apache.org/
> > > > community/resources.html#mail-
> > > > > > lists
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Get familiar with Ignite development process
> > described
> > > > > here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/
> confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > > > > > > > > > > Development+Process
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Instructions on how to contribute can be found
> here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
> > > > > > > > > > to+Contribute
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Project setup in Intellij IDEAL
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/
> confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > > > > > > > Project+Setup
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Jan 13, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hello everyone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I'd like to take IGNITE-2894. Can you assign to
> me?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Username: NSAmelchev
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Best wishes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best wishes,
> > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best wishes,
> > Amelchev Nikita
> >
>

[Nikita Amelchev]

I also agree that we should try to use Externalizable without
deserialization on servers. I will do it in a way suggested in the review.
The Externalizable will marshal through type GridBinaryMarshaller.OBJ, in
addition, I’ll add a flag in BinaryConfiguration which will be used to turn
on the old way with OptimizedMarshaller for compatibility with the current
data format.

2017-09-06 4:21 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]>:

> Vova, I agree. Let's stay loyal to our binary serialization protocol.
>
> Do you know if we will be loosing any functionality available in
> Externalizable, but not present in our binary protocol?
>
> D.
>
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 11:38 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Folks,
> >
> > Let's discuss how this should be handled properly. I proposed to use the
> > same format as regular binary object, with all data being written in
> "raw"
> > form. This would give us one critical advantage - we will be able to work
> > with such objects without deserialization on the server. Hence, no
> classes
> > will be needed on the server side. Current implementation (see PR in the
> > ticket) defines separate format which require deserialization, I am not
> OK
> > with it.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Nikita Amelchev <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello, Igniters!
> > >
> > > I've developed Externalizable interface support using BinaryMarshaller
> > [1].
> > >
> > > I have a misunderstanding with defining BinaryWriteMode in
> > > BinaryUtils.mode(cls): there is AffinityKey class which implements
> > > Externalizable and registered with ReflectiveSerialize,
> BinaryMarshaller
> > > defines it as BinaryWriteMode.OBJ and uses reflection according to
> > current
> > > logic. I want to say that AffinityKey must be defined as
> > > BinaryWriteMode.OBJ although the class implements the Externalizable
> > > interface.
> > > I have to add a new one more parameter in BinaryUtils.mode(cls) to
> define
> > > BinaryWriteMode in a proper way.
> > > Could you please review and comment my solution [2]?
> > >
> > > BTW, I have benchmarked my solution by GridMarshallerPerformanceTest
> and
> > it
> > > becomes faster up to 2 times (GridMarshaller).My JMH tests show that
> > > marshal faster up to 50% and unmarshal faster up to 100% on an
> > > Externalizable object.
> > >
> > > Also, I've filed an issue for Serializable interface support using
> > > BinaryMarshaller [3] as it has been described earlier.
> > >
> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2894
> > > [2] https://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-278
> > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6172
> > >
> > > 2017-08-21 20:43 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > [hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > > Nikita,
> > > >
> > > > I think anything binary related should have higher priority than
> > > > Externalizable. I.e. if user explicitly implemented Binarylizable or
> > > > provided a BinarySerializer, then BinaryMarshaller should of course
> use
> > > > that and ignore Externalizable.
> > > >
> > > > -Val
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am developing Externalizable interface support by
> BinaryMarshaller
> > > > > through new type constant. BinaryMarshaller allows using
> > > BinarySerializer
> > > > > to manage serialization. I need to define BinaryWriteMode in the
> > > > > BinaryClassDescriptor constructor. In case of the Binarylizable
> > > > interface -
> > > > > serializer is ignored and BinaryWriteMode is BINARY. Can I do the
> > same
> > > > with
> > > > > the Externalizable interface?
> > > > >
> > > > > In this case, I have issues with AffinityKey: some tests have
> failed
> > > > > because of they except serialization logic of defined the
> serializer
> > > > > instead of Externalizable logic. What is the priority between
> > > predefined
> > > > > BinarySerializer for class and implementation of Externalizable
> > > > interface?
> > > > >
> > > > > 2017-08-01 13:09 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Valya,
> > > > > > It makes sense to have both Externalizable and Binarylizable, as
> > user
> > > > > might
> > > > > > want to serialize object for different systems. E.g. deserialize
> > > binary
> > > > > > stream from Kafka in Externalizable mode, and then put it to
> Ignite
> > > > with
> > > > > > Binarylizable to allow for field access without deserialization.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nikita,
> > > > > > I think that Externalizable should be written in the same way as
> we
> > > > write
> > > > > > fields in "raw" mode. So may be it will be enough to simply
> > implement
> > > > our
> > > > > > own ObjectOutput interface on top of existing BinaryWriterExImpl.
> > > Makes
> > > > > > sense?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Vladimir.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Nikita,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. Makes sense to me.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2. Externalizable object should not be written as binary with
> > flag
> > > > 103,
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > should be written in the same way it's written now. I don't see
> > any
> > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > to change the protocol. Purpose of this task it to move the
> logic
> > > to
> > > > > > binary
> > > > > > > marshaller instead of depending on optimized marshaller, and
> also
> > > > fully
> > > > > > > support handles for these objects and objects included in them.
> > > > > Currently
> > > > > > > binary marshaller and optimized marshaller use different set of
> > > > > handles -
> > > > > > > this is the main downside of current implementation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3. I think this order is correct, but does it even make sense
> to
> > > > > > implement
> > > > > > > both Binarylizable and Externalizable?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Val
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hello everebody.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I would like to clarify about some moments in marshaller
> about
> > > > custom
> > > > > > > > serialization.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1. I suggest to divide the issue into two tasks: support the
> > > > > > > Externalizable
> > > > > > > > and support the Serializable. The second task is to do as a
> > > > separate
> > > > > > > issue.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2. In case the Optimized marshaller when object is the
> > > > Extenalizable
> > > > > > > > BinaryUtils.unmarshal() return deserialize value. But if we
> > will
> > > > not
> > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > Optimized marshaller and write the Extenalizable as the
> > > Object(103)
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > return the BinaryObjectExImpl. It break
> > > testBuilderExternalizable.
> > > > > (If
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > replace Externalizable to Binarilylizable it also dont work).
> > > Fix -
> > > > > > check
> > > > > > > > that object is the Extenalizable and deserialize
> > > > > > > > manual(BinaryUtils.java:1833 in PR). We will use this fix or
> > > return
> > > > > > > > BinaryObjectExImpl?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 3. What are priority if was implemented several interfaces:
> > > > > > Binarylizable
> > > > > > > > -> Externalizable -> Serializable ?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also can you pre review this issue?
> > > > > > > > PR: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2160
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2017-04-18 17:41 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Nikita,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > For Externalizable option 1 is the correct one.
> > Externalizable
> > > > > > objects
> > > > > > > > > should not be treated as binary objects.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > For read/writeObject, you indeed have to extend
> > > > ObjectOutputStream.
> > > > > > > > > writeObject() is final because you should extend
> > > > > > writeObjectOverride()
> > > > > > > > > instead. Take a look at ObjectOutputStream's JavaDoc and on
> > how
> > > > > this
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > done in OptimizedObjectOutputStream. Note that ideally we
> > need
> > > to
> > > > > > > > implement
> > > > > > > > > everything that is included in Java serialization spec,
> > > including
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > non-trivial stuff like PutField. I would check if it's
> > possible
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > somehow
> > > > > > > > > reuse the code that already exists in optimized marshaller
> as
> > > > much
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > possible.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -Val
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I see two ways to support the Externalizable in the BM:
> > > > > > > > > > 1. Add a new type constant to the GridBinaryMarshaller
> > class
> > > > etc
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > read/writeExternal in the BinaryClassDescriptor.
> > > > > > > > > > 2. Make read/writeExternal through the BINARY type
> without
> > > > > updating
> > > > > > > > > > metadata.
> > > > > > > > > > I don't know how to make a support read/writeObject of
> the
> > > > > > > Serializable
> > > > > > > > > > without delegating to the OM. Because read/writeObject
> > > methods
> > > > > need
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > Objectoutputstream class argument. One way is to delegate
> > it
> > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > OptimizedObjectOutputStream. Second way is to extend the
> > > > > > > > > Objectoutputstream
> > > > > > > > > > in the BinaryWriterExImpl. But it is wrong way because
> the
> > > > > > > writeObject
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > final.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 2017-01-19 20:46 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Nikita,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > In my view we just need to support Externalizable and
> > > > > > > > > > > writeObject/readObject in BinaryMarshaller and get rid
> of
> > > > > > > delegation
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > optimized marshaller. Once such classes also go through
> > > > > > > > > BinaryMarshaller
> > > > > > > > > > > streams, they will be aware of binary configuration and
> > > will
> > > > > > share
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > > > set of handles as well. This should take care of all
> the
> > > > issues
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > here.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > -Val
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I have some questions about single Marshaller.
> > > > > > > > > > > > It seems not easy to merge OptimizedMarshaller with
> > > > > > > > BinaryMarshaller
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > there any sense in it?
> > > > > > > > > > > > When Binary object inside Externalizable serialized
> > with
> > > > > > > optimized
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > losing all benefits.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Will OptimizedMarshaller be supported at 2.0 version?
> > Or
> > > to
> > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > better?
> > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think about it?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > In addition, Vladimir Ozerov, I would like to hear
> your
> > > > > > opinion.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-01-17 23:32 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Someone else added you to the contributors list in
> > > JIRA.
> > > > > This
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > couldn’t add you for the second time. Ignite
> > > committers,
> > > > > > please
> > > > > > > > > reply
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the dev list if you add someone to the list.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Nikita, yes, this ticket is still relevant. Go
> ahead
> > > and
> > > > > > assign
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > yourself.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Also please you may want to help with approaching
> 2.0
> > > > > release
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > take
> > > > > > > > > > > > > care of one of the sub-tasks that must be included
> in
> > > > 2.0:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4547
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4547>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > —
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 15, 2017, at 9:02 PM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This issue was created long ago. Is still
> relevant?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > JIRA account:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Username: NSAmelchev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Full Name: Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-01-14 1:52 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Nikita,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I can’t find provided account in Ignite JIRA
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> jira/browse/IGNITE>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Please create an account there and share with
> me.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> This information might be useful for you as
> well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Subscribe to both dev and user lists:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://ignite.apache.org/
> > > > > community/resources.html#mail-
> > > > > > > lists
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Get familiar with Ignite development process
> > > described
> > > > > > here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > > > > > > > > > > > Development+Process
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Instructions on how to contribute can be found
> > here:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > > > confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
> > > > > > > > > > > to+Contribute
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Project setup in Intellij IDEAL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > > > > > > > > Project+Setup
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Denis
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Jan 13, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hello everyone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I'd like to take IGNITE-2894. Can you assign to
> > me?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Username: NSAmelchev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Best wishes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best wishes,
> > > Amelchev Nikita
> > >
> >
>

--
Best wishes,
Amelchev Nikita

[Nikita Amelchev]

I have some problem when we don't deserialize Externalizable. Some messages
require deserializing in GridCacheIoManager.message0(). For example, tests
like testResponseMessageOnUnmarshallingFailed where readExternal throws an
exception. A message containing Externalizable is deserialized and
processed as a failed message. If we do not deserialize here, we won't
process this message as failed. What way to resolve it? I see we can try to
deserialize after a check on Externalizable in a finishUnmarshall method,
but it looks bad. What are your thoughts?

2017-09-07 12:57 GMT+03:00 Nikita Amelchev <[hidden email]>:

> I also agree that we should try to use Externalizable without
> deserialization on servers. I will do it in a way suggested in the review.
> The Externalizable will marshal through type GridBinaryMarshaller.OBJ, in
> addition, I’ll add a flag in BinaryConfiguration which will be used to turn
> on the old way with OptimizedMarshaller for compatibility with the current
> data format.
>
> 2017-09-06 4:21 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]>:
>
>> Vova, I agree. Let's stay loyal to our binary serialization protocol.
>>
>> Do you know if we will be loosing any functionality available in
>> Externalizable, but not present in our binary protocol?
>>
>> D.
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 11:38 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Folks,
>> >
>> > Let's discuss how this should be handled properly. I proposed to use the
>> > same format as regular binary object, with all data being written in
>> "raw"
>> > form. This would give us one critical advantage - we will be able to
>> work
>> > with such objects without deserialization on the server. Hence, no
>> classes
>> > will be needed on the server side. Current implementation (see PR in the
>> > ticket) defines separate format which require deserialization, I am not
>> OK
>> > with it.
>> >
>> > Thoughts?
>> >
>> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Nikita Amelchev <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hello, Igniters!
>> > >
>> > > I've developed Externalizable interface support using BinaryMarshaller
>> > [1].
>> > >
>> > > I have a misunderstanding with defining BinaryWriteMode in
>> > > BinaryUtils.mode(cls): there is AffinityKey class which implements
>> > > Externalizable and registered with ReflectiveSerialize,
>> BinaryMarshaller
>> > > defines it as BinaryWriteMode.OBJ and uses reflection according to
>> > current
>> > > logic. I want to say that AffinityKey must be defined as
>> > > BinaryWriteMode.OBJ although the class implements the Externalizable
>> > > interface.
>> > > I have to add a new one more parameter in BinaryUtils.mode(cls) to
>> define
>> > > BinaryWriteMode in a proper way.
>> > > Could you please review and comment my solution [2]?
>> > >
>> > > BTW, I have benchmarked my solution by GridMarshallerPerformanceTest
>> and
>> > it
>> > > becomes faster up to 2 times (GridMarshaller).My JMH tests show that
>> > > marshal faster up to 50% and unmarshal faster up to 100% on an
>> > > Externalizable object.
>> > >
>> > > Also, I've filed an issue for Serializable interface support using
>> > > BinaryMarshaller [3] as it has been described earlier.
>> > >
>> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2894
>> > > [2] https://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-278
>> > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6172
>> > >
>> > > 2017-08-21 20:43 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
>> > > [hidden email]>:
>> > >
>> > > > Nikita,
>> > > >
>> > > > I think anything binary related should have higher priority than
>> > > > Externalizable. I.e. if user explicitly implemented Binarylizable or
>> > > > provided a BinarySerializer, then BinaryMarshaller should of course
>> use
>> > > > that and ignore Externalizable.
>> > > >
>> > > > -Val
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
>> [hidden email]
>> > >
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Hello, Igniters.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I am developing Externalizable interface support by
>> BinaryMarshaller
>> > > > > through new type constant. BinaryMarshaller allows using
>> > > BinarySerializer
>> > > > > to manage serialization. I need to define BinaryWriteMode in the
>> > > > > BinaryClassDescriptor constructor. In case of the Binarylizable
>> > > > interface -
>> > > > > serializer is ignored and BinaryWriteMode is BINARY. Can I do the
>> > same
>> > > > with
>> > > > > the Externalizable interface?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > In this case, I have issues with AffinityKey: some tests have
>> failed
>> > > > > because of they except serialization logic of defined the
>> serializer
>> > > > > instead of Externalizable logic. What is the priority between
>> > > predefined
>> > > > > BinarySerializer for class and implementation of Externalizable
>> > > > interface?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 2017-08-01 13:09 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]
>> >:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Valya,
>> > > > > > It makes sense to have both Externalizable and Binarylizable, as
>> > user
>> > > > > might
>> > > > > > want to serialize object for different systems. E.g. deserialize
>> > > binary
>> > > > > > stream from Kafka in Externalizable mode, and then put it to
>> Ignite
>> > > > with
>> > > > > > Binarylizable to allow for field access without deserialization.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Nikita,
>> > > > > > I think that Externalizable should be written in the same way
>> as we
>> > > > write
>> > > > > > fields in "raw" mode. So may be it will be enough to simply
>> > implement
>> > > > our
>> > > > > > own ObjectOutput interface on top of existing
>> BinaryWriterExImpl.
>> > > Makes
>> > > > > > sense?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Vladimir.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
>> > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Hi Nikita,
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > 1. Makes sense to me.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > 2. Externalizable object should not be written as binary with
>> > flag
>> > > > 103,
>> > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > should be written in the same way it's written now. I don't
>> see
>> > any
>> > > > > > reason
>> > > > > > > to change the protocol. Purpose of this task it to move the
>> logic
>> > > to
>> > > > > > binary
>> > > > > > > marshaller instead of depending on optimized marshaller, and
>> also
>> > > > fully
>> > > > > > > support handles for these objects and objects included in
>> them.
>> > > > > Currently
>> > > > > > > binary marshaller and optimized marshaller use different set
>> of
>> > > > > handles -
>> > > > > > > this is the main downside of current implementation.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > 3. I think this order is correct, but does it even make sense
>> to
>> > > > > > implement
>> > > > > > > both Binarylizable and Externalizable?
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > -Val
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
>> > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Hello everebody.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I would like to clarify about some moments in marshaller
>> about
>> > > > custom
>> > > > > > > > serialization.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > 1. I suggest to divide the issue into two tasks: support the
>> > > > > > > Externalizable
>> > > > > > > > and support the Serializable. The second task is to do as a
>> > > > separate
>> > > > > > > issue.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > 2. In case the Optimized marshaller when object is the
>> > > > Extenalizable
>> > > > > > > > BinaryUtils.unmarshal() return deserialize value. But if we
>> > will
>> > > > not
>> > > > > > use
>> > > > > > > > Optimized marshaller and write the Extenalizable as the
>> > > Object(103)
>> > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > return the BinaryObjectExImpl. It break
>> > > testBuilderExternalizable.
>> > > > > (If
>> > > > > > we
>> > > > > > > > replace Externalizable to Binarilylizable it also dont
>> work).
>> > > Fix -
>> > > > > > check
>> > > > > > > > that object is the Extenalizable and deserialize
>> > > > > > > > manual(BinaryUtils.java:1833 in PR). We will use this fix or
>> > > return
>> > > > > > > > BinaryObjectExImpl?
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > 3. What are priority if was implemented several interfaces:
>> > > > > > Binarylizable
>> > > > > > > > -> Externalizable -> Serializable ?
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Also can you pre review this issue?
>> > > > > > > > PR: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2160
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > 2017-04-18 17:41 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
>> > > > > > > > [hidden email]>:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Nikita,
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > For Externalizable option 1 is the correct one.
>> > Externalizable
>> > > > > > objects
>> > > > > > > > > should not be treated as binary objects.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > For read/writeObject, you indeed have to extend
>> > > > ObjectOutputStream.
>> > > > > > > > > writeObject() is final because you should extend
>> > > > > > writeObjectOverride()
>> > > > > > > > > instead. Take a look at ObjectOutputStream's JavaDoc and
>> on
>> > how
>> > > > > this
>> > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > done in OptimizedObjectOutputStream. Note that ideally we
>> > need
>> > > to
>> > > > > > > > implement
>> > > > > > > > > everything that is included in Java serialization spec,
>> > > including
>> > > > > > some
>> > > > > > > > > non-trivial stuff like PutField. I would check if it's
>> > possible
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > > > somehow
>> > > > > > > > > reuse the code that already exists in optimized
>> marshaller as
>> > > > much
>> > > > > as
>> > > > > > > > > possible.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > -Val
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Nikita Amelchev <
>> > > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > I see two ways to support the Externalizable in the BM:
>> > > > > > > > > > 1. Add a new type constant to the GridBinaryMarshaller
>> > class
>> > > > etc
>> > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > read/writeExternal in the BinaryClassDescriptor.
>> > > > > > > > > > 2. Make read/writeExternal through the BINARY type
>> without
>> > > > > updating
>> > > > > > > > > > metadata.
>> > > > > > > > > > I don't know how to make a support read/writeObject of
>> the
>> > > > > > > Serializable
>> > > > > > > > > > without delegating to the OM. Because read/writeObject
>> > > methods
>> > > > > need
>> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > Objectoutputstream class argument. One way is to
>> delegate
>> > it
>> > > to
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > OptimizedObjectOutputStream. Second way is to extend the
>> > > > > > > > > Objectoutputstream
>> > > > > > > > > > in the BinaryWriterExImpl. But it is wrong way because
>> the
>> > > > > > > writeObject
>> > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > final.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > 2017-01-19 20:46 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
>> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>:
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > Nikita,
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > In my view we just need to support Externalizable and
>> > > > > > > > > > > writeObject/readObject in BinaryMarshaller and get
>> rid of
>> > > > > > > delegation
>> > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > optimized marshaller. Once such classes also go
>> through
>> > > > > > > > > BinaryMarshaller
>> > > > > > > > > > > streams, they will be aware of binary configuration
>> and
>> > > will
>> > > > > > share
>> > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > same
>> > > > > > > > > > > set of handles as well. This should take care of all
>> the
>> > > > issues
>> > > > > > we
>> > > > > > > > have
>> > > > > > > > > > > here.
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > -Val
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
>> > > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > I have some questions about single Marshaller.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > It seems not easy to merge OptimizedMarshaller with
>> > > > > > > > BinaryMarshaller
>> > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > there any sense in it?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > When Binary object inside Externalizable serialized
>> > with
>> > > > > > > optimized
>> > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > > > losing all benefits.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Will OptimizedMarshaller be supported at 2.0
>> version?
>> > Or
>> > > to
>> > > > > > merge
>> > > > > > > > > they
>> > > > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > better?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think about it?
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > In addition, Vladimir Ozerov, I would like to hear
>> your
>> > > > > > opinion.
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-01-17 23:32 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <
>> > > [hidden email]
>> > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Someone else added you to the contributors list in
>> > > JIRA.
>> > > > > This
>> > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > why
>> > > > > > > > > > I
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > couldn’t add you for the second time. Ignite
>> > > committers,
>> > > > > > please
>> > > > > > > > > reply
>> > > > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > the dev list if you add someone to the list.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Nikita, yes, this ticket is still relevant. Go
>> ahead
>> > > and
>> > > > > > assign
>> > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > yourself.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Also please you may want to help with approaching
>> 2.0
>> > > > > release
>> > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > take
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > care of one of the sub-tasks that must be
>> included in
>> > > > 2.0:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4547
>> <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4547
>> >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > —
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 15, 2017, at 9:02 PM, Nikita Amelchev <
>> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This issue was created long ago. Is still
>> relevant?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > JIRA account:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Username: NSAmelchev
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Full Name: Amelchev Nikita
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-01-14 1:52 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <
>> > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > >:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Nikita,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I can’t find provided account in Ignite JIRA
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> jira/browse/IGNITE>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Please create an account there and share with
>> me.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> This information might be useful for you as
>> well.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Subscribe to both dev and user lists:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://ignite.apache.org/
>> > > > > community/resources.html#mail-
>> > > > > > > lists
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Get familiar with Ignite development process
>> > > described
>> > > > > > here:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/
>> > confluence/display/IGNITE/
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Development+Process
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Instructions on how to contribute can be found
>> > here:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/
>> > > > confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
>> > > > > > > > > > > to+Contribute
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Project setup in Intellij IDEAL
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/
>> > confluence/display/IGNITE/
>> > > > > > > > > Project+Setup
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Regards,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Denis
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Jan 13, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
>> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hello everyone.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I'd like to take IGNITE-2894. Can you assign
>> to
>> > me?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Username: NSAmelchev
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> --
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Best wishes,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Amelchev Nikita
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > > > Best wishes,
>> > > > > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > Best wishes,
>> > > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > Best wishes,
>> > > > > Amelchev Nikita
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Best wishes,
>> > > Amelchev Nikita
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best wishes,
> Amelchev Nikita
>

--
Best wishes,
Amelchev Nikita

[Valentin Kulichenko]

Nikita,

It sounds like the test should be changed, no? In case I'm missing
something, can you please give more details about the scenario which
requires deserialization? Generally, this sounds weird - in cases when we
can get advantage of binary format and avoid deserialization, we definitely
should not deserialize.

-Val

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Nikita Amelchev <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I have some problem when we don't deserialize Externalizable. Some messages
> require deserializing in GridCacheIoManager.message0(). For example, tests
> like testResponseMessageOnUnmarshallingFailed where readExternal throws an
> exception. A message containing Externalizable is deserialized and
> processed as a failed message. If we do not deserialize here, we won't
> process this message as failed. What way to resolve it? I see we can try to
> deserialize after a check on Externalizable in a finishUnmarshall method,
> but it looks bad. What are your thoughts?
>
> 2017-09-07 12:57 GMT+03:00 Nikita Amelchev <[hidden email]>:
>
> > I also agree that we should try to use Externalizable without
> > deserialization on servers. I will do it in a way suggested in the
> review.
> > The Externalizable will marshal through type GridBinaryMarshaller.OBJ, in
> > addition, I’ll add a flag in BinaryConfiguration which will be used to
> turn
> > on the old way with OptimizedMarshaller for compatibility with the
> current
> > data format.
> >
> > 2017-09-06 4:21 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]>:
> >
> >> Vova, I agree. Let's stay loyal to our binary serialization protocol.
> >>
> >> Do you know if we will be loosing any functionality available in
> >> Externalizable, but not present in our binary protocol?
> >>
> >> D.
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 11:38 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Folks,
> >> >
> >> > Let's discuss how this should be handled properly. I proposed to use
> the
> >> > same format as regular binary object, with all data being written in
> >> "raw"
> >> > form. This would give us one critical advantage - we will be able to
> >> work
> >> > with such objects without deserialization on the server. Hence, no
> >> classes
> >> > will be needed on the server side. Current implementation (see PR in
> the
> >> > ticket) defines separate format which require deserialization, I am
> not
> >> OK
> >> > with it.
> >> >
> >> > Thoughts?
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Nikita Amelchev <
> [hidden email]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hello, Igniters!
> >> > >
> >> > > I've developed Externalizable interface support using
> BinaryMarshaller
> >> > [1].
> >> > >
> >> > > I have a misunderstanding with defining BinaryWriteMode in
> >> > > BinaryUtils.mode(cls): there is AffinityKey class which implements
> >> > > Externalizable and registered with ReflectiveSerialize,
> >> BinaryMarshaller
> >> > > defines it as BinaryWriteMode.OBJ and uses reflection according to
> >> > current
> >> > > logic. I want to say that AffinityKey must be defined as
> >> > > BinaryWriteMode.OBJ although the class implements the Externalizable
> >> > > interface.
> >> > > I have to add a new one more parameter in BinaryUtils.mode(cls) to
> >> define
> >> > > BinaryWriteMode in a proper way.
> >> > > Could you please review and comment my solution [2]?
> >> > >
> >> > > BTW, I have benchmarked my solution by GridMarshallerPerformanceTest
> >> and
> >> > it
> >> > > becomes faster up to 2 times (GridMarshaller).My JMH tests show that
> >> > > marshal faster up to 50% and unmarshal faster up to 100% on an
> >> > > Externalizable object.
> >> > >
> >> > > Also, I've filed an issue for Serializable interface support using
> >> > > BinaryMarshaller [3] as it has been described earlier.
> >> > >
> >> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2894
> >> > > [2] https://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-278
> >> > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6172
> >> > >
> >> > > 2017-08-21 20:43 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
> >> > > [hidden email]>:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Nikita,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I think anything binary related should have higher priority than
> >> > > > Externalizable. I.e. if user explicitly implemented Binarylizable
> or
> >> > > > provided a BinarySerializer, then BinaryMarshaller should of
> course
> >> use
> >> > > > that and ignore Externalizable.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > -Val
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> >> [hidden email]
> >> > >
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I am developing Externalizable interface support by
> >> BinaryMarshaller
> >> > > > > through new type constant. BinaryMarshaller allows using
> >> > > BinarySerializer
> >> > > > > to manage serialization. I need to define BinaryWriteMode in the
> >> > > > > BinaryClassDescriptor constructor. In case of the Binarylizable
> >> > > > interface -
> >> > > > > serializer is ignored and BinaryWriteMode is BINARY. Can I do
> the
> >> > same
> >> > > > with
> >> > > > > the Externalizable interface?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > In this case, I have issues with AffinityKey: some tests have
> >> failed
> >> > > > > because of they except serialization logic of defined the
> >> serializer
> >> > > > > instead of Externalizable logic. What is the priority between
> >> > > predefined
> >> > > > > BinarySerializer for class and implementation of Externalizable
> >> > > > interface?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > 2017-08-01 13:09 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <
> [hidden email]
> >> >:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > Valya,
> >> > > > > > It makes sense to have both Externalizable and Binarylizable,
> as
> >> > user
> >> > > > > might
> >> > > > > > want to serialize object for different systems. E.g.
> deserialize
> >> > > binary
> >> > > > > > stream from Kafka in Externalizable mode, and then put it to
> >> Ignite
> >> > > > with
> >> > > > > > Binarylizable to allow for field access without
> deserialization.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Nikita,
> >> > > > > > I think that Externalizable should be written in the same way
> >> as we
> >> > > > write
> >> > > > > > fields in "raw" mode. So may be it will be enough to simply
> >> > implement
> >> > > > our
> >> > > > > > own ObjectOutput interface on top of existing
> >> BinaryWriterExImpl.
> >> > > Makes
> >> > > > > > sense?
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Vladimir.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> >> > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Hi Nikita,
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > 1. Makes sense to me.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > 2. Externalizable object should not be written as binary
> with
> >> > flag
> >> > > > 103,
> >> > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > should be written in the same way it's written now. I don't
> >> see
> >> > any
> >> > > > > > reason
> >> > > > > > > to change the protocol. Purpose of this task it to move the
> >> logic
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > > binary
> >> > > > > > > marshaller instead of depending on optimized marshaller, and
> >> also
> >> > > > fully
> >> > > > > > > support handles for these objects and objects included in
> >> them.
> >> > > > > Currently
> >> > > > > > > binary marshaller and optimized marshaller use different set
> >> of
> >> > > > > handles -
> >> > > > > > > this is the main downside of current implementation.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > 3. I think this order is correct, but does it even make
> sense
> >> to
> >> > > > > > implement
> >> > > > > > > both Binarylizable and Externalizable?
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > -Val
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> >> > > > [hidden email]
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Hello everebody.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > I would like to clarify about some moments in marshaller
> >> about
> >> > > > custom
> >> > > > > > > > serialization.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > 1. I suggest to divide the issue into two tasks: support
> the
> >> > > > > > > Externalizable
> >> > > > > > > > and support the Serializable. The second task is to do as
> a
> >> > > > separate
> >> > > > > > > issue.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > 2. In case the Optimized marshaller when object is the
> >> > > > Extenalizable
> >> > > > > > > > BinaryUtils.unmarshal() return deserialize value. But if
> we
> >> > will
> >> > > > not
> >> > > > > > use
> >> > > > > > > > Optimized marshaller and write the Extenalizable as the
> >> > > Object(103)
> >> > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > return the BinaryObjectExImpl. It break
> >> > > testBuilderExternalizable.
> >> > > > > (If
> >> > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > > > replace Externalizable to Binarilylizable it also dont
> >> work).
> >> > > Fix -
> >> > > > > > check
> >> > > > > > > > that object is the Extenalizable and deserialize
> >> > > > > > > > manual(BinaryUtils.java:1833 in PR). We will use this fix
> or
> >> > > return
> >> > > > > > > > BinaryObjectExImpl?
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > 3. What are priority if was implemented several
> interfaces:
> >> > > > > > Binarylizable
> >> > > > > > > > -> Externalizable -> Serializable ?
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Also can you pre review this issue?
> >> > > > > > > > PR: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2160
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > 2017-04-18 17:41 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
> >> > > > > > > > [hidden email]>:
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > Nikita,
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > For Externalizable option 1 is the correct one.
> >> > Externalizable
> >> > > > > > objects
> >> > > > > > > > > should not be treated as binary objects.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > For read/writeObject, you indeed have to extend
> >> > > > ObjectOutputStream.
> >> > > > > > > > > writeObject() is final because you should extend
> >> > > > > > writeObjectOverride()
> >> > > > > > > > > instead. Take a look at ObjectOutputStream's JavaDoc and
> >> on
> >> > how
> >> > > > > this
> >> > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > done in OptimizedObjectOutputStream. Note that ideally
> we
> >> > need
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > > > > implement
> >> > > > > > > > > everything that is included in Java serialization spec,
> >> > > including
> >> > > > > > some
> >> > > > > > > > > non-trivial stuff like PutField. I would check if it's
> >> > possible
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > somehow
> >> > > > > > > > > reuse the code that already exists in optimized
> >> marshaller as
> >> > > > much
> >> > > > > as
> >> > > > > > > > > possible.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > -Val
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Nikita Amelchev <
> >> > > > > > [hidden email]
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > I see two ways to support the Externalizable in the
> BM:
> >> > > > > > > > > > 1. Add a new type constant to the GridBinaryMarshaller
> >> > class
> >> > > > etc
> >> > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > read/writeExternal in the BinaryClassDescriptor.
> >> > > > > > > > > > 2. Make read/writeExternal through the BINARY type
> >> without
> >> > > > > updating
> >> > > > > > > > > > metadata.
> >> > > > > > > > > > I don't know how to make a support read/writeObject of
> >> the
> >> > > > > > > Serializable
> >> > > > > > > > > > without delegating to the OM. Because read/writeObject
> >> > > methods
> >> > > > > need
> >> > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > Objectoutputstream class argument. One way is to
> >> delegate
> >> > it
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > OptimizedObjectOutputStream. Second way is to extend
> the
> >> > > > > > > > > Objectoutputstream
> >> > > > > > > > > > in the BinaryWriterExImpl. But it is wrong way because
> >> the
> >> > > > > > > writeObject
> >> > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > final.
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > 2017-01-19 20:46 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
> >> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>:
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Nikita,
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > In my view we just need to support Externalizable
> and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > writeObject/readObject in BinaryMarshaller and get
> >> rid of
> >> > > > > > > delegation
> >> > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > optimized marshaller. Once such classes also go
> >> through
> >> > > > > > > > > BinaryMarshaller
> >> > > > > > > > > > > streams, they will be aware of binary configuration
> >> and
> >> > > will
> >> > > > > > share
> >> > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > same
> >> > > > > > > > > > > set of handles as well. This should take care of all
> >> the
> >> > > > issues
> >> > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > > > have
> >> > > > > > > > > > > here.
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > -Val
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> >> > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I have some questions about single Marshaller.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > It seems not easy to merge OptimizedMarshaller
> with
> >> > > > > > > > BinaryMarshaller
> >> > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > there any sense in it?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > When Binary object inside Externalizable
> serialized
> >> > with
> >> > > > > > > optimized
> >> > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > losing all benefits.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Will OptimizedMarshaller be supported at 2.0
> >> version?
> >> > Or
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > > merge
> >> > > > > > > > > they
> >> > > > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > better?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think about it?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > In addition, Vladimir Ozerov, I would like to hear
> >> your
> >> > > > > > opinion.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-01-17 23:32 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <
> >> > > [hidden email]
> >> > > > >:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Someone else added you to the contributors list
> in
> >> > > JIRA.
> >> > > > > This
> >> > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > why
> >> > > > > > > > > > I
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > couldn’t add you for the second time. Ignite
> >> > > committers,
> >> > > > > > please
> >> > > > > > > > > reply
> >> > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the dev list if you add someone to the list.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Nikita, yes, this ticket is still relevant. Go
> >> ahead
> >> > > and
> >> > > > > > assign
> >> > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > yourself.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Also please you may want to help with
> approaching
> >> 2.0
> >> > > > > release
> >> > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > take
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > care of one of the sub-tasks that must be
> >> included in
> >> > > > 2.0:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/
> jira/browse/IGNITE-4547
> >> <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/
> jira/browse/IGNITE-4547
> >> >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > —
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 15, 2017, at 9:02 PM, Nikita Amelchev <
> >> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This issue was created long ago. Is still
> >> relevant?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > JIRA account:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Username: NSAmelchev
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Full Name: Amelchev Nikita
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-01-14 1:52 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <
> >> > > > [hidden email]
> >> > > > > >:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Nikita,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I can’t find provided account in Ignite JIRA
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE
> <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> jira/browse/IGNITE>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Please create an account there and share with
> >> me.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> This information might be useful for you as
> >> well.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Subscribe to both dev and user lists:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://ignite.apache.org/
> >> > > > > community/resources.html#mail-
> >> > > > > > > lists
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Get familiar with Ignite development process
> >> > > described
> >> > > > > > here:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/
> >> > confluence/display/IGNITE/
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Development+Process
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Instructions on how to contribute can be
> found
> >> > here:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/
> >> > > > confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
> >> > > > > > > > > > > to+Contribute
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Project setup in Intellij IDEAL
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/
> >> > confluence/display/IGNITE/
> >> > > > > > > > > Project+Setup
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Regards,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Denis
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Jan 13, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Nikita
> Amelchev <
> >> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hello everyone.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I'd like to take IGNITE-2894. Can you assign
> >> to
> >> > me?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Username: NSAmelchev
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> --
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Best wishes,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Amelchev Nikita
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > > > > > Best wishes,
> >> > > > > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > > > Best wishes,
> >> > > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > --
> >> > > > > Best wishes,
> >> > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Best wishes,
> >> > > Amelchev Nikita
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best wishes,
> > Amelchev Nikita
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best wishes,
> Amelchev Nikita
>

[Nikita Amelchev]

Another problem is support BinaryObject methods, for example, when we need
to get a field(often case in queries with annotation QuerySqlField). In a
binary object, fields are getting from the schema, which I don't have
(BinaryObjectException: Cannot find schema for object with compact footer).

I see such ways to resolve it:

1. Deserialize object and get a field.

2. Make methods like BinaryFieldImpl.value(obj) unavailable. I tried to
reproduce similar behavior with Binarylizable(rawWriter) and it throws the
same exception.

Therefore, if we want to avoid deserialization we should get a format that
is similar to Binarylizable with a raw writer. Is it right?

What are your thoughts?


2017-09-19 20:10 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
[hidden email]>:

> Nikita,
>
> It sounds like the test should be changed, no? In case I'm missing
> something, can you please give more details about the scenario which
> requires deserialization? Generally, this sounds weird - in cases when we
> can get advantage of binary format and avoid deserialization, we definitely
> should not deserialize.
>
> -Val
>
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Nikita Amelchev <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > I have some problem when we don't deserialize Externalizable. Some
> messages
> > require deserializing in GridCacheIoManager.message0(). For example,
> tests
> > like testResponseMessageOnUnmarshallingFailed where readExternal throws
> an
> > exception. A message containing Externalizable is deserialized and
> > processed as a failed message. If we do not deserialize here, we won't
> > process this message as failed. What way to resolve it? I see we can try
> to
> > deserialize after a check on Externalizable in a finishUnmarshall method,
> > but it looks bad. What are your thoughts?
> >
> > 2017-09-07 12:57 GMT+03:00 Nikita Amelchev <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > I also agree that we should try to use Externalizable without
> > > deserialization on servers. I will do it in a way suggested in the
> > review.
> > > The Externalizable will marshal through type GridBinaryMarshaller.OBJ,
> in
> > > addition, I’ll add a flag in BinaryConfiguration which will be used to
> > turn
> > > on the old way with OptimizedMarshaller for compatibility with the
> > current
> > > data format.
> > >
> > > 2017-09-06 4:21 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > >> Vova, I agree. Let's stay loyal to our binary serialization protocol.
> > >>
> > >> Do you know if we will be loosing any functionality available in
> > >> Externalizable, but not present in our binary protocol?
> > >>
> > >> D.
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 11:38 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> [hidden email]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Folks,
> > >> >
> > >> > Let's discuss how this should be handled properly. I proposed to use
> > the
> > >> > same format as regular binary object, with all data being written in
> > >> "raw"
> > >> > form. This would give us one critical advantage - we will be able to
> > >> work
> > >> > with such objects without deserialization on the server. Hence, no
> > >> classes
> > >> > will be needed on the server side. Current implementation (see PR in
> > the
> > >> > ticket) defines separate format which require deserialization, I am
> > not
> > >> OK
> > >> > with it.
> > >> >
> > >> > Thoughts?
> > >> >
> > >> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > [hidden email]>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Hello, Igniters!
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I've developed Externalizable interface support using
> > BinaryMarshaller
> > >> > [1].
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I have a misunderstanding with defining BinaryWriteMode in
> > >> > > BinaryUtils.mode(cls): there is AffinityKey class which implements
> > >> > > Externalizable and registered with ReflectiveSerialize,
> > >> BinaryMarshaller
> > >> > > defines it as BinaryWriteMode.OBJ and uses reflection according to
> > >> > current
> > >> > > logic. I want to say that AffinityKey must be defined as
> > >> > > BinaryWriteMode.OBJ although the class implements the
> Externalizable
> > >> > > interface.
> > >> > > I have to add a new one more parameter in BinaryUtils.mode(cls) to
> > >> define
> > >> > > BinaryWriteMode in a proper way.
> > >> > > Could you please review and comment my solution [2]?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > BTW, I have benchmarked my solution by
> GridMarshallerPerformanceTest
> > >> and
> > >> > it
> > >> > > becomes faster up to 2 times (GridMarshaller).My JMH tests show
> that
> > >> > > marshal faster up to 50% and unmarshal faster up to 100% on an
> > >> > > Externalizable object.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Also, I've filed an issue for Serializable interface support using
> > >> > > BinaryMarshaller [3] as it has been described earlier.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2894
> > >> > > [2] https://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-278
> > >> > > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6172
> > >> > >
> > >> > > 2017-08-21 20:43 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
> > >> > > [hidden email]>:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > Nikita,
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > I think anything binary related should have higher priority than
> > >> > > > Externalizable. I.e. if user explicitly implemented
> Binarylizable
> > or
> > >> > > > provided a BinarySerializer, then BinaryMarshaller should of
> > course
> > >> use
> > >> > > > that and ignore Externalizable.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > -Val
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > >> [hidden email]
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > > Hello, Igniters.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > I am developing Externalizable interface support by
> > >> BinaryMarshaller
> > >> > > > > through new type constant. BinaryMarshaller allows using
> > >> > > BinarySerializer
> > >> > > > > to manage serialization. I need to define BinaryWriteMode in
> the
> > >> > > > > BinaryClassDescriptor constructor. In case of the
> Binarylizable
> > >> > > > interface -
> > >> > > > > serializer is ignored and BinaryWriteMode is BINARY. Can I do
> > the
> > >> > same
> > >> > > > with
> > >> > > > > the Externalizable interface?
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > In this case, I have issues with AffinityKey: some tests have
> > >> failed
> > >> > > > > because of they except serialization logic of defined the
> > >> serializer
> > >> > > > > instead of Externalizable logic. What is the priority between
> > >> > > predefined
> > >> > > > > BinarySerializer for class and implementation of
> Externalizable
> > >> > > > interface?
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > 2017-08-01 13:09 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <
> > [hidden email]
> > >> >:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Valya,
> > >> > > > > > It makes sense to have both Externalizable and
> Binarylizable,
> > as
> > >> > user
> > >> > > > > might
> > >> > > > > > want to serialize object for different systems. E.g.
> > deserialize
> > >> > > binary
> > >> > > > > > stream from Kafka in Externalizable mode, and then put it to
> > >> Ignite
> > >> > > > with
> > >> > > > > > Binarylizable to allow for field access without
> > deserialization.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Nikita,
> > >> > > > > > I think that Externalizable should be written in the same
> way
> > >> as we
> > >> > > > write
> > >> > > > > > fields in "raw" mode. So may be it will be enough to simply
> > >> > implement
> > >> > > > our
> > >> > > > > > own ObjectOutput interface on top of existing
> > >> BinaryWriterExImpl.
> > >> > > Makes
> > >> > > > > > sense?
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Vladimir.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > >> > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Hi Nikita,
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > 1. Makes sense to me.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > 2. Externalizable object should not be written as binary
> > with
> > >> > flag
> > >> > > > 103,
> > >> > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > > should be written in the same way it's written now. I
> don't
> > >> see
> > >> > any
> > >> > > > > > reason
> > >> > > > > > > to change the protocol. Purpose of this task it to move
> the
> > >> logic
> > >> > > to
> > >> > > > > > binary
> > >> > > > > > > marshaller instead of depending on optimized marshaller,
> and
> > >> also
> > >> > > > fully
> > >> > > > > > > support handles for these objects and objects included in
> > >> them.
> > >> > > > > Currently
> > >> > > > > > > binary marshaller and optimized marshaller use different
> set
> > >> of
> > >> > > > > handles -
> > >> > > > > > > this is the main downside of current implementation.
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > 3. I think this order is correct, but does it even make
> > sense
> > >> to
> > >> > > > > > implement
> > >> > > > > > > both Binarylizable and Externalizable?
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > -Val
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > >> > > > [hidden email]
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > Hello everebody.
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > I would like to clarify about some moments in marshaller
> > >> about
> > >> > > > custom
> > >> > > > > > > > serialization.
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > 1. I suggest to divide the issue into two tasks: support
> > the
> > >> > > > > > > Externalizable
> > >> > > > > > > > and support the Serializable. The second task is to do
> as
> > a
> > >> > > > separate
> > >> > > > > > > issue.
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > 2. In case the Optimized marshaller when object is the
> > >> > > > Extenalizable
> > >> > > > > > > > BinaryUtils.unmarshal() return deserialize value. But if
> > we
> > >> > will
> > >> > > > not
> > >> > > > > > use
> > >> > > > > > > > Optimized marshaller and write the Extenalizable as the
> > >> > > Object(103)
> > >> > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > > > return the BinaryObjectExImpl. It break
> > >> > > testBuilderExternalizable.
> > >> > > > > (If
> > >> > > > > > we
> > >> > > > > > > > replace Externalizable to Binarilylizable it also dont
> > >> work).
> > >> > > Fix -
> > >> > > > > > check
> > >> > > > > > > > that object is the Extenalizable and deserialize
> > >> > > > > > > > manual(BinaryUtils.java:1833 in PR). We will use this
> fix
> > or
> > >> > > return
> > >> > > > > > > > BinaryObjectExImpl?
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > 3. What are priority if was implemented several
> > interfaces:
> > >> > > > > > Binarylizable
> > >> > > > > > > > -> Externalizable -> Serializable ?
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > Also can you pre review this issue?
> > >> > > > > > > > PR: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2160
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > 2017-04-18 17:41 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
> > >> > > > > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > Nikita,
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > For Externalizable option 1 is the correct one.
> > >> > Externalizable
> > >> > > > > > objects
> > >> > > > > > > > > should not be treated as binary objects.
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > For read/writeObject, you indeed have to extend
> > >> > > > ObjectOutputStream.
> > >> > > > > > > > > writeObject() is final because you should extend
> > >> > > > > > writeObjectOverride()
> > >> > > > > > > > > instead. Take a look at ObjectOutputStream's JavaDoc
> and
> > >> on
> > >> > how
> > >> > > > > this
> > >> > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > > > > done in OptimizedObjectOutputStream. Note that ideally
> > we
> > >> > need
> > >> > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > implement
> > >> > > > > > > > > everything that is included in Java serialization
> spec,
> > >> > > including
> > >> > > > > > some
> > >> > > > > > > > > non-trivial stuff like PutField. I would check if it's
> > >> > possible
> > >> > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > somehow
> > >> > > > > > > > > reuse the code that already exists in optimized
> > >> marshaller as
> > >> > > > much
> > >> > > > > as
> > >> > > > > > > > > possible.
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > -Val
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > >> > > > > > [hidden email]
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > I see two ways to support the Externalizable in the
> > BM:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > 1. Add a new type constant to the
> GridBinaryMarshaller
> > >> > class
> > >> > > > etc
> > >> > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > > > > > read/writeExternal in the BinaryClassDescriptor.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > 2. Make read/writeExternal through the BINARY type
> > >> without
> > >> > > > > updating
> > >> > > > > > > > > > metadata.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > I don't know how to make a support read/writeObject
> of
> > >> the
> > >> > > > > > > Serializable
> > >> > > > > > > > > > without delegating to the OM. Because
> read/writeObject
> > >> > > methods
> > >> > > > > need
> > >> > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > > Objectoutputstream class argument. One way is to
> > >> delegate
> > >> > it
> > >> > > to
> > >> > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > > OptimizedObjectOutputStream. Second way is to extend
> > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > Objectoutputstream
> > >> > > > > > > > > > in the BinaryWriterExImpl. But it is wrong way
> because
> > >> the
> > >> > > > > > > writeObject
> > >> > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > > > > > final.
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > 2017-01-19 20:46 GMT+03:00 Valentin Kulichenko <
> > >> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]>:
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > Nikita,
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > In my view we just need to support Externalizable
> > and
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > writeObject/readObject in BinaryMarshaller and get
> > >> rid of
> > >> > > > > > > delegation
> > >> > > > > > > > to
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > optimized marshaller. Once such classes also go
> > >> through
> > >> > > > > > > > > BinaryMarshaller
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > streams, they will be aware of binary
> configuration
> > >> and
> > >> > > will
> > >> > > > > > share
> > >> > > > > > > > the
> > >> > > > > > > > > > same
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > set of handles as well. This should take care of
> all
> > >> the
> > >> > > > issues
> > >> > > > > > we
> > >> > > > > > > > have
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > here.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > -Val
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Nikita Amelchev <
> > >> > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > I have some questions about single Marshaller.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > It seems not easy to merge OptimizedMarshaller
> > with
> > >> > > > > > > > BinaryMarshaller
> > >> > > > > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > there any sense in it?
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > When Binary object inside Externalizable
> > serialized
> > >> > with
> > >> > > > > > > optimized
> > >> > > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > losing all benefits.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Will OptimizedMarshaller be supported at 2.0
> > >> version?
> > >> > Or
> > >> > > to
> > >> > > > > > merge
> > >> > > > > > > > > they
> > >> > > > > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > better?
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think about it?
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > In addition, Vladimir Ozerov, I would like to
> hear
> > >> your
> > >> > > > > > opinion.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-01-17 23:32 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <
> > >> > > [hidden email]
> > >> > > > >:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Someone else added you to the contributors
> list
> > in
> > >> > > JIRA.
> > >> > > > > This
> > >> > > > > > > is
> > >> > > > > > > > > why
> > >> > > > > > > > > > I
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > couldn’t add you for the second time. Ignite
> > >> > > committers,
> > >> > > > > > please
> > >> > > > > > > > > reply
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the dev list if you add someone to the list.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Nikita, yes, this ticket is still relevant. Go
> > >> ahead
> > >> > > and
> > >> > > > > > assign
> > >> > > > > > > > it
> > >> > > > > > > > > on
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > yourself.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Also please you may want to help with
> > approaching
> > >> 2.0
> > >> > > > > release
> > >> > > > > > > and
> > >> > > > > > > > > > take
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > care of one of the sub-tasks that must be
> > >> included in
> > >> > > > 2.0:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/
> > jira/browse/IGNITE-4547
> > >> <
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/
> > jira/browse/IGNITE-4547
> > >> >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > —
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 15, 2017, at 9:02 PM, Nikita
> Amelchev <
> > >> > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This issue was created long ago. Is still
> > >> relevant?
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > JIRA account:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Username: NSAmelchev
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Full Name: Amelchev Nikita
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2017-01-14 1:52 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <
> > >> > > > [hidden email]
> > >> > > > > >:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Nikita,
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I can’t find provided account in Ignite
> JIRA
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/
> jira/browse/IGNITE
> > <
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> jira/browse/IGNITE>
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Please create an account there and share
> with
> > >> me.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> This information might be useful for you as
> > >> well.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Subscribe to both dev and user lists:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://ignite.apache.org/
> > >> > > > > community/resources.html#mail-
> > >> > > > > > > lists
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Get familiar with Ignite development
> process
> > >> > > described
> > >> > > > > > here:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > >> > confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Development+Process
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Instructions on how to contribute can be
> > found
> > >> > here:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > >> > > > confluence/display/IGNITE/How+
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > to+Contribute
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Project setup in Intellij IDEAL
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/
> > >> > confluence/display/IGNITE/
> > >> > > > > > > > > Project+Setup
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Regards,
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Denis
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Jan 13, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Nikita
> > Amelchev <
> > >> > > > > > > > > > [hidden email]
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hello everyone.
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I'd like to take IGNITE-2894. Can you
> assign
> > >> to
> > >> > me?
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Username: NSAmelchev
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> --
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Best wishes,
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Amelchev Nikita
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > >> > > > > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > >> > > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > > --
> > >> > > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > >> > > > > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > >> > > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > --
> > >> > > > > Best wishes,
> > >> > > > > Amelchev Nikita
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > --
> > >> > > Best wishes,
> > >> > > Amelchev Nikita
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best wishes,
> > > Amelchev Nikita
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best wishes,
> > Amelchev Nikita
> >
>

--
Best wishes,
Amelchev Nikita