Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ignite.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@ignite.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+0=VoWAGLAoqv7y5T-EvJD+A=PN5qaGyHi6cx7OYv6mV5cySQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAGt6o8=Ni5MNAx8DwBnWYYudFY9yQ9tV8EUi2k+nZiFsegjXYg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABDss3iL2h_KCZ83MSeZZw2T=RagfyeW-8kgKYs1F9vpKKz0sg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGt6o8nzxmendcQithQD00SK2FzBdPVhn4SKX+SXnsvtMyhzmQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+0=VoWAGLAoqv7y5T-EvJD+A=PN5qaGyHi6cx7OYv6mV5cySQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 10:57:27 +0300
Message-ID: 
 <CAGt6o8nV2oJ7LjfA=NTHW8UwKnU0Rw-DkmZfiwUTXakfRD9ROQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Handling collections in BinaryMarshaller
From: Vladimir Ozerov <vozerov@gridgain.com>
To: dev@ignite.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c25c5a021a0105267271c3

--001a11c25c5a021a0105267271c3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Dmitriy,
Correct. This is what I meant.

On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 10:26 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>
wrote:

> Vladimir,
>
> I believe the default collections in Java and .NET should be supported out
> of the box. Moreover, if we know the collection type, e.g. HashMap, we can
> always provide a more efficient way of serializing it ourselves, in the
> Binary marshaller.
>
> Is this something you had in mind, or were you proposing something
> different.
>
> D.
>
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <vozerov@gridgain.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Alex,
> >
> > What interface do you mean? If user has collection field in class and
> > explicitly call BinaryWriter.writeCollection(), we can leave current
> > interoperability support - it is not a problem.
> > As per your second point - user could pass collections e.g. as argument
> to
> > Java task started from .NET. This is where we will loose interoperabiltiy
> > and will force user to create some wrappers. But these are very specific
> > use cases.
> >
> > BTW, proposed solution is almost exactly how we work with collections in
> > .NET.
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > I like the idea, however it has obvious downsides. First, if a user
> class
> > > contains a collection, we force user to implement additional interface,
> > > even if the collection is a simple ArrayList. Second, I do not see how
> > this
> > > plain collection can be the value for the cache - user will always need
> > to
> > > write a wrapper/containing class around it.
> > >
> > > I think we should provide minimum support for basic types - HashMap,
> > > LinkedHashMap, ArrayList and treat other classes the way Vladimir
> > > described.
> > >
> >
>

--001a11c25c5a021a0105267271c3--