Pavel Could you update the page by following:
- String, date, UUID arrays allow to put NULL. Due to that every item in the array written as type code byte (default item type or null type code) + type data. It should be detailed explained (looks like that the table should have an addtional column called for instance "nullable") - UUID type takes 16 bytes length thanks On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Sergey Kozlov <skoz...@gridgain.com> wrote: > Pavel > > Thanks for explanations! > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> Sergey, >> >> 1. Code table size does not affect anything, as I understand, so there is >> no reason to introduce an extra byte. >> 2. We have object arrays (code 23), I forgot to mention them, fixed. >> 3. Also forgot, see code 25 in the updated document. >> >> Also note that operation codes have been updated (grouped by purpose) as >> part of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6989. >> >> Thanks, >> Pavel >> >> On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 9:54 PM, Sergey Kozlov <skoz...@gridgain.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Pavel >> > >> > Thanks for the document and your efforts for new protocol. It was really >> > helpful for playing around the python thin client design. >> > >> > Could you explain some things that were still not clear for binary >> object >> > format: >> > >> > 1. What a reason to introduce separated type codes for arrays? Why just >> we >> > can't use the following? >> > *<1 byte universal array code>* >> > *<1 byte primitive code>* >> > *<4 bytes length>* >> > *<N bytes data>* >> > >> > We get 1 byte overhead but save 10 bytes in the code table. For arrays >> the >> > overhead is really insignificant:10 longs array takes now 1+4+4*10=45 >> bytes >> > vs 1+1+4+4*10=46 bytes for the approach >> > Moreover for that appoach a new primitive code will be available for >> using >> > for array immediately. >> > >> > 2. Why the arrays force to use a selected type? For python there's no >> > limitations to use different types across one array (list). Would be >> good >> > to introduce a new type that will allow that. It could be look like >> > following >> > *<1 byte universal array code>* >> > *<1 byte no common type code*> <-- this says that every item must >> provide >> > its date type code like it does regular primitive data >> > *<4 bytes length>* >> > *<1 byte item 0 type code>* <-- item provides its code >> > *<N byte item 0 data>* <-- item provides its data >> > *<1 byte item 1 type code>* >> > *<N byte item 1 data>* >> > etc >> > >> > Also that allow to put nested arrays without changes in type code table! >> > For instance if we want to store 9 longs and 1 boolean it will take >> > now 1+1+4+(1+9)*4+(1+1)=48 >> > bytes (vs 45 bytes to store as 10 longs as usual). >> > >> > 3. Ther's only one way to store a dictionary (key-value) structure as >> value >> > in the cache via Complex Object. But it looks like overcomplicated. I >> > suppose to introduce a code for that >> > *<1 byte key-value dictionary code>* >> > >> > *<4 bytes length>* >> > *<1 byte key 1 **name **type code>* >> > *<N byte key 1 name data>* >> > *<1 byte value 1 type code>* >> > *<N byte value 1 value>* >> > *<1 byte key 2 **name **type code>* >> > *<N byte key 2 name data>* >> > *<1 byte value 2 type code>* >> > *<N byte value 2 value>* >> > etc >> > >> > Also that allow to put nested dictionaries without changes in type code >> > table! >> > Of course for the appoach above we get significat overhead for key >> > storing. But I think it is acceptable for some cases and definitely ok >> for >> > Python >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Prachi Garg <pg...@gridgain.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > > Thanks Pavel! The document has good information. I'll create one on >> > > readme.io; will also add some examples there. >> > > >> > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 5:03 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org >> > >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > Igniters, >> > > > >> > > > I've put together a detailed description of our Thin Client protocol >> > > > in form of IEP on wiki: >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP- >> > > > 9+Thin+Client+Protocol >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > To clarify: >> > > > - Protocol implementation is in master (see ClientMessageParser >> class) >> > > > - Protocol has not been released yet, so we are free to change >> anything >> > > > - Protocol is only used by .NET Thin Client for now, but is >> supposed to >> > > be >> > > > used from other languages by third party contributors >> > > > - More operations will be added in future, this is a first set of >> them, >> > > > cache-related >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > Please review the document and let me know your thoughts. >> > > > Is there anything missing or wrong? >> > > > >> > > > We should make sure that the foundation is solid and extensible. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > Thanks, >> > > > Pavel >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Sergey Kozlov >> > GridGain Systems >> > www.gridgain.com >> > >> > > > > -- > Sergey Kozlov > GridGain Systems > www.gridgain.com > -- Sergey Kozlov GridGain Systems www.gridgain.com
