Val, Comparator has two problems from user perspective: 1) User will be obligated to have comparator classes on servers. BinaryMarshaller was designed to avoid this. 2) Code duplication - user will have to support two implementations - one for deserialized form, and one for binary form.
As it appears that user is going to have some kind of classes on the server, why not simply deserialize cache objects and perform normal comparison? Vladimir. On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> wrote: > Why can’t we simply compare the binary arrays? > > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Igniters, > > > > We currently have a pretty serious limitation for binary objects: they > can > > be used as SQL fields and can't be indexed, because we don't know how to > > compare them. And it seems to me that it can be easily fixed by adding an > > optional comparator to BinaryConfiguration and BinaryTypeConfiguration: > > > > public void setComparator(Comparator<BinaryObject> comparator) > > > > Are there any pitfalls that I'm missing? > > > > -Val > > >
