Proxy serialization issue

[Denis Magda]

Igniters,

A end user reported on the issue related to proxy
serialization/deserialization
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2450

Could someone experienced in marshalling take a look at this? Seems that
the original proxy related issue wasn't fully fixed.

--
Denis

[Dmitriy Setrakyan]

Who was originally responsible for fixing the Proxy serialization issue?

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:07 AM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Igniters,
>
> A end user reported on the issue related to proxy
> serialization/deserialization
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2450
>
> Could someone experienced in marshalling take a look at this? Seems that
> the original proxy related issue wasn't fully fixed.
>
> --
> Denis
>
>
>

[Denis Magda]

To my knowledge Alex G. was taking care of this initial issue.

This particular one is reproduced only in multi JVM mode.

--
Denis

On 1/28/2016 2:59 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:

> Who was originally responsible for fixing the Proxy serialization issue?
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:07 AM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Igniters,
>>
>> A end user reported on the issue related to proxy
>> serialization/deserialization
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2450
>>
>> Could someone experienced in marshalling take a look at this? Seems that
>> the original proxy related issue wasn't fully fixed.
>>
>> --
>> Denis
>>
>>
>>

[Alexey Goncharuk]

This is correct, I took the original test that existed for Optimized
marshaller and copied it for Binary marshaller. Was not aware of multi-jvm
specifics. Just ran the provided example with Optimized marshaller - it
does not work either.

2016-01-28 11:08 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <[hidden email]>:

> To my knowledge Alex G. was taking care of this initial issue.
>
> This particular one is reproduced only in multi JVM mode.
>
> --
> Denis
>
>
> On 1/28/2016 2:59 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
>
>> Who was originally responsible for fixing the Proxy serialization issue?
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:07 AM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Igniters,
>>>
>>> A end user reported on the issue related to proxy
>>> serialization/deserialization
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2450
>>>
>>> Could someone experienced in marshalling take a look at this? Seems that
>>> the original proxy related issue wasn't fully fixed.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Denis
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>

[Valentin Kulichenko]

Yes, this happens because in a single JVM the dynamic proxy class is
available for Class.forName, but for multi-jvm case this is not true. We
should additionally write information about the implemented interfaces and
manually recreate the proxy during unmarshalling. But the problem is that
it's not a compatible change. In binary marshaller there is a protocol
version, so should be OK, but we don't have it for optimized marshaller,
right?

-Val

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:21 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> This is correct, I took the original test that existed for Optimized
> marshaller and copied it for Binary marshaller. Was not aware of multi-jvm
> specifics. Just ran the provided example with Optimized marshaller - it
> does not work either.
>
> 2016-01-28 11:08 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <[hidden email]>:
>
> > To my knowledge Alex G. was taking care of this initial issue.
> >
> > This particular one is reproduced only in multi JVM mode.
> >
> > --
> > Denis
> >
> >
> > On 1/28/2016 2:59 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> >
> >> Who was originally responsible for fixing the Proxy serialization issue?
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:07 AM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Igniters,
> >>>
> >>> A end user reported on the issue related to proxy
> >>> serialization/deserialization
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2450
> >>>
> >>> Could someone experienced in marshalling take a look at this? Seems
> that
> >>> the original proxy related issue wasn't fully fixed.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Denis
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>

[dsetrakyan]

In my view we should go ahead and fix it. How can we break something that
never worked?

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Yes, this happens because in a single JVM the dynamic proxy class is
> available for Class.forName, but for multi-jvm case this is not true. We
> should additionally write information about the implemented interfaces and
> manually recreate the proxy during unmarshalling. But the problem is that
> it's not a compatible change. In binary marshaller there is a protocol
> version, so should be OK, but we don't have it for optimized marshaller,
> right?
>
> -Val
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:21 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > This is correct, I took the original test that existed for Optimized
> > marshaller and copied it for Binary marshaller. Was not aware of
> multi-jvm
> > specifics. Just ran the provided example with Optimized marshaller - it
> > does not work either.
> >
> > 2016-01-28 11:08 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > > To my knowledge Alex G. was taking care of this initial issue.
> > >
> > > This particular one is reproduced only in multi JVM mode.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Denis
> > >
> > >
> > > On 1/28/2016 2:59 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> > >
> > >> Who was originally responsible for fixing the Proxy serialization
> issue?
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:07 AM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Igniters,
> > >>>
> > >>> A end user reported on the issue related to proxy
> > >>> serialization/deserialization
> > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2450
> > >>>
> > >>> Could someone experienced in marshalling take a look at this? Seems
> > that
> > >>> the original proxy related issue wasn't fully fixed.
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Denis
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >
> >
>

[Valentin Kulichenko]

Folks,

I fixed this issue and committed to master.

-Val

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> In my view we should go ahead and fix it. How can we break something that
> never worked?
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Yes, this happens because in a single JVM the dynamic proxy class is
> > available for Class.forName, but for multi-jvm case this is not true. We
> > should additionally write information about the implemented interfaces
> and
> > manually recreate the proxy during unmarshalling. But the problem is that
> > it's not a compatible change. In binary marshaller there is a protocol
> > version, so should be OK, but we don't have it for optimized marshaller,
> > right?
> >
> > -Val
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:21 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > This is correct, I took the original test that existed for Optimized
> > > marshaller and copied it for Binary marshaller. Was not aware of
> > multi-jvm
> > > specifics. Just ran the provided example with Optimized marshaller - it
> > > does not work either.
> > >
> > > 2016-01-28 11:08 GMT+03:00 Denis Magda <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > > > To my knowledge Alex G. was taking care of this initial issue.
> > > >
> > > > This particular one is reproduced only in multi JVM mode.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Denis
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 1/28/2016 2:59 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Who was originally responsible for fixing the Proxy serialization
> > issue?
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:07 AM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Igniters,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> A end user reported on the issue related to proxy
> > > >>> serialization/deserialization
> > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2450
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Could someone experienced in marshalling take a look at this? Seems
> > > that
> > > >>> the original proxy related issue wasn't fully fixed.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>> Denis
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>