ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Non-UTF-8 string encoding support in BinaryMarshaller (IGNITE-5655)
Date Thu, 27 Jul 2017 14:10:43 GMT
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Igor Sapego <isapego@apache.org> wrote:

> Just a note from the platforms guy:
>
> Solution with table-level configuration is going to be significantly
> harder to implement for platforms and ODBC then field-level one.
>

Igor, it seems like you are advocating the per-cell configuration, not
per-field one. The per-field configuration can be defined at the
table/cache level.

I see your point about C++ and .NET integrations however. Can't we provide
this info at node-join time or table-creation time? This way all nodes will
receive it and you will be able to grab it on different platforms.


>
> Also, what about binary objects, which are not stored in cache,
> but being marshalled?
>

I think the default system encoding should be used here. If we don't have
configuration for default encoding, we should add it.


>
>
> Best Regards,
> Igor
>
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 3:40 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur <daradurvs@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > Encoding must be set on per field basis. This will give us as most
> > > flexible
> > > > solution at the cost of 1-byte overhead.
> > >
> > > > Vova, I agree that the encoding should be set on per-field basis, but
> > at
> > > > the table level, not at a cell level.
> > >
> > > Dmitriy, Vladimir,
> > > Let's use both approaches :-)
> > > We can add parameter to CacheConfiguration.
> > > If parameter specifie to use cache level encoding then marshaller will
> > use
> > > encoding in a cache,
> > > otherwise marshaller will use per-field encoding.
> > > Of course only if it doesn't complicate the solution.
> > >
> > >
> > I think that it will complicate the solution and will complicate the
> > marshalling protocol. The advantage of specifying the encoding at
> > table/cache level is that we don't need to add extra encoding bytes to
> the
> > marshalling protocol.
> >
> > I think Vova was suggesting encoding at the cell level, not at the field
> > level, which seems to be redundant to me.
> >
> > Vova, do you agree?
> >
>

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