ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Binary "type ID" on public API.
Date Thu, 26 Nov 2015 09:17:01 GMT
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <vozerov@gridgain.com>
wrote:

> Sure,
>
>    1. IgniteBinary.typeId(String typeName) -> no replacement, we simply do
>    not need it.
>    2. IgniteBinary.metadata(int typeId) -> use IgniteBinary.metadata(String
>    typeName) instead
>    3. BinaryType.typeId() -> use BinaryType.typeName() instead.
>

Are you proposing to completely remove typeID from the API?


>
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Vladimir,
> >
> > Can you describe the new APIs to get this information in Ignite?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > D.
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <vozerov@gridgain.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > We have several public methods which operate on "type ID" concept:
> > >
> > >    - IgniteBinary.typeId(String typeName)
> > >    - IgniteBinary.metadata(int typeId)
> > >    - BinaryType.typeId()
> > >
> > > These methods came from initial GridGain portables implementation where
> > it
> > > is possbile that there is no type metadata so ID is the only way to
> > operate
> > > on the type.
> > >
> > > In Ignite we *always* have type metadata. So I think we can safely
> remove
> > > mentioned methods.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > Vladimir.
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message