We can distinguish this situation using boolean flag that initializes during object building. But it will increase object size.
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Alexander Paschenko < alexander.a.pasche...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 <dsetrak...@apache.org>: > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@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 <ag...@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 < > dsetrak...@apache.org > >> > > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Alexey Goncharuk < > >> > > alexey.goncha...@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 < > dsetrak...@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.pasche...@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 > >> > > >> > -- Andrey Gura GridGain Systems, Inc. www.gridgain.com
