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=VoXw5sAVDrD-wKOs2NdTCR51aryWAPi9O8LnCEHY_4hcyg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOKDqC-2aB1MzBgQu+x7m5zEw=mrYphQoGEHFAS2mK_FNHFN4g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGcMBHhw4KGaZeavJQEU2ERr670X0+kPJcZ=5G0pVS0jjzTgmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGt6o8knhiXDzTj-cpyJyxn9hABsDfwTGdNm7bezbh0YMvVo_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <56F3BF72.9000106@gridgain.com> <CALH+G9owKfbeyWEXo42HXcts=2_YAoHpzHAtjpyVtRa5CAXWxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <SNT147-W15DCA9B4DA19D7B44AAE88CF820@phx.gbl> <1470062542934-10304.post@n4.nabble.com>
 <CA+0=VoWhZHYy8pL=O2zg0nAqSy-9rRbmwNGxm8xbCDOseNtNuw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABDss3g6=wvQnNJ96dwc0Py65PTdHHm4B0yssd_oi-0sJ2z_Dw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+0=VoVpZM48BnuzxyaKKGHPA_dPJ6DN95r=WFSeoPN0TrUihA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEOB7kWe3fzSbLss=-0_J_t9vAgiQhUeaUCwmgKb7j8H5gXYWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGt6o8kJ+OYQarBKYHLa6ZP_fkU=-7ZjPmnDFwoK1GmMtkUCaA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+0=VoXw5sAVDrD-wKOs2NdTCR51aryWAPi9O8LnCEHY_4hcyg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexander Paschenko <alexander.a.paschenko@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 10:14:47 +0300
Message-ID: <CAJhSPbqd6XBArApMS8y8GjB4g1Dcq5JUqtO2RQXyi2iW4YvnRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: All BinaryObjects created by BinaryObjectBuilder stored at the
 same partition by default
To: dev@ignite.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
archived-at: Tue, 02 Aug 2016 07:15:01 -0000

Dmitriy,

Good point, however, currently there's no way to distinguish hash code
of zero which is a valid case from missing hash code. We probably
should enhance binary builder for it to handle this case.

- Alex

2016-08-02 9:47 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>:
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <vozerov@gridgain.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Andrey,
>>
>> The question is when to print this warning. I doubt we can print a warning
>> when calling *BinaryObjectBuilder.build() *method, because an object
>> without a hash code is normal situation.
>>
>>
> I would not only print warning, but throw exception, if an object without a
> hashCode ends up on a put or read operation in cache.
>
>
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Andrey Gura <agura@gridgain.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I think we also should print some warning in case when hashCode() wasn't
>> > called on BinaryObject explicitly.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 2:20 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
>> > > alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Dmitriy,
>> > > >
>> > > > The question is how do you calculate the value of the hashCode? Do
>> you
>> > > want
>> > > > it to be specified explicitly in INSERT statement?
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > I think optionally we should allow to specify hashCode as part of the
>> > > INSERT statement. However, if it is not specified, we should calculate
>> it
>> > > automatically based in the key fields defined in the schema/type.
>> Agree?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > 2016-08-01 19:47 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org
>> >:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Alex,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > In your case, why not just explicitly set hashcode every time you
>> > > create
>> > > > an
>> > > > > object? There is BinaryObjectBuilder.hashCode(...) method.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > D.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 7:42 AM, al.psc <
>> > > alexander.a.paschenko@gmail.com>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Guys,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > It seems like this problem has become an important one once
>> again.
>> > > > > > In the course of working on
>> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2294 (DML support)
>> > > > there's
>> > > > > > need
>> > > > > > to support binary marshaller. And, although we can build just
>> > > > > BinaryObject
>> > > > > > and put it to cache, without adequate hash code it won't be
>> stored
>> > > > > > properly.
>> > > > > > Currently SQL MERGE works simply by deserializing newly built
>> > object,
>> > > > but
>> > > > > > it's obviously wrong and is just a workaround rather a solution.
>> > > > > > Has anyone come with possible design proposals for this problem's
>> > > > > solution?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Thanks.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > - Alex
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > --
>> > > > > > View this message in context:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/All-BinaryObjects-created-by-BinaryObjectBuilder-stored-at-the-same-partition-by-default-tp8042p10304.html
>> > > > > > Sent from the Apache Ignite Developers mailing list archive at
>> > > > > Nabble.com.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Andrey Gura
>> > GridGain Systems, Inc.
>> > www.gridgain.com
>> >
>>