Hi Pavel, In the operation request, what does the 'flags' parameter mean?
Thanks, -Prachi On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:27 AM, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org> wrote: > Sergey, good point, done. > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Sergey Kozlov <skoz...@gridgain.com> > wrote: > > > 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 > > >
