Dmitriy, I think we don't need a separate implementation of cache like BLOB cache. Instead of it, a user can mark value class or value class field with the special annotation "@BLOB". During cache put, marshaller will place a special placeholder on such fields, write byte[] array payload of a field to special internal blob storage and place the only reference to actual DataEntry in the page memory. During cache get, marshaller will place a special proxy instead of an actual class that can be downloaded and unmarshalled by demand from internal storage on the user side. Using such approach we will also solve eager/lazy problem, this will also give user possibility to adjust his own marshallers (like Jackson, Jaxb, etc.) to marshal/unmarshal his blob classes from/to byte[] arrays. No major changes in public API are required, it can be pluggable component.
2018-08-03 0:25 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>: > On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 1:08 AM, Pavel Kovalenko <jokse...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Dmitriy, > > > > I still don't understand why do you think that it will be file system? > > In all my previous messages I emphasized that this storage shouldn't be > > considered as a file system. It's just a large data storage, whose > entities > > can be easily accessed using key/link (internally, or externally using > > web/binary protocol interfaces). > > > > > Instead, if we must focus on large blobs, I would solve the problem of > > supporting large blobs in regular Ignite caches, as I suggested before. > > > > This is impossible. Our page memory can't handle efficiently it by > design. > > > > But our API does. What is stopping us from creating a cache as a BLOB cache > and using whatever storage we need? >
