Should we make the interface ClusterNode to extend Serializable?

[daradurvs]

Hi Igniters!

I've noticed that interface 'ClusterNode' doesn't extend
'Serializable', but at the same time its implementations are being
transferred across the network widely.

We have not faced the problem because of the most used implementation
'TcpDiscoveryNode' implemented 'Externalizable' that allows JVM to
delegate the serialization to the implementation.

I'd suggest making the interface ClusterNode to extend Serializable.

What do you think?

--
Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.

[dsetrakyan]

I think I would be against it. Why would anyone serialize ClusterNode
outside of Ignite? Did we get any complaints from users?

D.

On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 3:55 AM Vyacheslav Daradur <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi Igniters!
>
> I've noticed that interface 'ClusterNode' doesn't extend
> 'Serializable', but at the same time its implementations are being
> transferred across the network widely.
>
> We have not faced the problem because of the most used implementation
> 'TcpDiscoveryNode' implemented 'Externalizable' that allows JVM to
> delegate the serialization to the implementation.
>
> I'd suggest making the interface ClusterNode to extend Serializable.
>
> What do you think?
>
> --
> Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
>

[daradurvs]

Hi Dmitriy,

It's not about users, it's about some kind of mismatch when
serializable objects like 'DiscoveryEvent' contains non-serializable
fields.

I'm not seeing a big problem for the project just want to point this
out and to resolve if needed.
On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 8:55 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I think I would be against it. Why would anyone serialize ClusterNode
> outside of Ignite? Did we get any complaints from users?
>
> D.
>
> On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 3:55 AM Vyacheslav Daradur <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Igniters!
> >
> > I've noticed that interface 'ClusterNode' doesn't extend
> > 'Serializable', but at the same time its implementations are being
> > transferred across the network widely.
> >
> > We have not faced the problem because of the most used implementation
> > 'TcpDiscoveryNode' implemented 'Externalizable' that allows JVM to
> > delegate the serialization to the implementation.
> >
> > I'd suggest making the interface ClusterNode to extend Serializable.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > --
> > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> >

--
Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.

[dsetrakyan]

Got it. I did not know about DiscoveryEvent.

On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 7:04 AM Vyacheslav Daradur <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi Dmitriy,
>
> It's not about users, it's about some kind of mismatch when
> serializable objects like 'DiscoveryEvent' contains non-serializable
> fields.
>
> I'm not seeing a big problem for the project just want to point this
> out and to resolve if needed.
> On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 8:55 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > I think I would be against it. Why would anyone serialize ClusterNode
> > outside of Ignite? Did we get any complaints from users?
> >
> > D.
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 3:55 AM Vyacheslav Daradur <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Igniters!
> > >
> > > I've noticed that interface 'ClusterNode' doesn't extend
> > > 'Serializable', but at the same time its implementations are being
> > > transferred across the network widely.
> > >
> > > We have not faced the problem because of the most used implementation
> > > 'TcpDiscoveryNode' implemented 'Externalizable' that allows JVM to
> > > delegate the serialization to the implementation.
> > >
> > > I'd suggest making the interface ClusterNode to extend Serializable.
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > >
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
>