Hello, Andrei! I have read this thread and PR. The builder idea and API looks good. But I have some questions.
1. In SchemaTableBuilder: When I use a builder in chain style, I expect in every step the same result type. And as I see this idea is implemented anywhere except pk(), where you return PrimryKeyBuilder. As for me, it will be more intuitive if we will use something like this: SchemaTableBuilder.pk(PrimryKeyBuilder pkb) 2. In TableModificationBuilder: I have the same question. Some methods returns TableModificationBuilder, but alretColumn returns AlterColumnBuilder. As for me, it will be more intuitive if we will use something like TableModificationBuilder.alretColumn(AlterColumnBuilder acb) But in general, these two points are only a matter of taste. 3. In your examples, I can't understand how we can alter some table, which we have already created previously (how we can get its SchemaTable object). But maybe this question is out of scope? ------------------ Thanks Ilya Kazakov вт, 29 дек. 2020 г. в 15:22, Michael Cherkasov <michael.cherka...@gmail.com >: > Hi all, > > I reviewed the mail thread and proposal page and I still don't fully > understand what is going to be changed, I would really appreciate it if you > will answer a few questions: > > 1. Are you going to leave only one schema per cache? if so, will be there > an option to have a table with arbitrary objects(pure KV case)? > 2. What options will Apache Ignite 3.0 have to define schema? SchemaBuilder > and SQL only? Is there an option to put the schema definition to the > configuration?(I really don't like this, I would prefer to have > separate scripts to create schemas) > 3. Is there a way to change field type? if yes, can it be done in runtime? > 4. Looks like BinaryMarshaller is going to be re-worked too, is there any > IEP for this? > 5. I don't like automatic schema evaluation when a new field is added > automatically on record put, so is there a way to prohibit this behavior? > I think all schema changes should be done only explicitly except initial > schema creation. > > Thanks, > Mike. > > пн, 21 дек. 2020 г. в 06:40, Andrey Mashenkov <andrey.mashen...@gmail.com > >: > > > Hi, Igniters. > > > > We all know that the current QueryEntity API is not convenient and needs > to > > be reworked. > > So, I'm glad to share PR [1] with schema configuration public API for > > Ignite 3.0. > > > > New schema configuration uses Builder pattern, which looks more > comfortable > > to use. > > > > In the PR you will find a 'schema' package with the API itself, and a > draft > > implementation in 'internal' sub-package, > > and a test that demonstrates how the API could be used. > > > > Please note: > > > > * Entrypoint is 'SchemaBuilders' class with static factory methods. > > * The implementation is decoupled and can be easily extracted to separate > > module if we decide to do so. > > * Some columns types (e.g. Date/Time) are missed, they will be added > lately > > in separate tickes. > > * Index configuration extends marker interface that makes possible to > > implement indexes of new types in plugins. > > Hopfully, we could add a persistent geo-indices support in future. > > * Supposedly, current table schema can be changed via builder-like > > structure as it is done if JOOQ project. See 'TableModificationBuilder' > for > > details. > > I'm not sure 'SchemaTable' should have 'toBuilder()' converter for that > > purpose as it is a Schema Manager responsibility to create mutator > objects > > from the current schema, > > but implementing the Schema manager is out of scope and will be designed > > within the next task. > > * Interfaces implementations are out of scope. I did not intend to merge > > them right now, but for test/demostration purposes. > > > > It is NOT the final version and some may be changed before the first > > release of course. > > For now, we have to agree if we can proceed with this approach or some > > issues should be resolved at first. > > > > Any thoughts or objections? > > Are interfaces good enough to be merged within the current ticket? > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13748 > > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 2:33 PM Юрий <jury.gerzhedow...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > A little bit my thoughts about unsigned types: > > > > > > 1. Seems we may support unsign types > > > 2. It requires adding new types to the internal representation, > protocol, > > > e.t.c. > > > 3. internal representation should be the same as we keep sign types. So > > it > > > will not requires more memory > > > 4. User should be aware of specifics such types for platforms which not > > > support unsigned types. For example, a user could derive -6 value in > Java > > > for 250 unsigned byte value (from bits perspective will be right). I > > think > > > We shouldn't use more wide type for such cases, especially it will be > bad > > > for unsigned long when we require returns BigInteger type. > > > 5. Possible it requires some suffix/preffix for new types like a > '250u' - > > > it means that 250 is an unsigned value type. > > > 6. It requires a little bit more expensive comparison logic for indexes > > > 7. It requires new comparison logic for expressions. I think it not > > > possible for the current H2 engine and probably possible for the new > > > Calcite engine. Need clarification from anybody who involved in this > part > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:36, Alexey Goncharuk < > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com > > > >: > > > > > > > Actually, we can support comparisons in 3.0: once we the actual type > > > > information, we can make proper runtime adjustments and conversions > to > > > > treat those values as unsigned - it will be just a bit more > expensive. > > > > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:32, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > > > > SQL range queries it will break > > > > > > WHERE x > y may return wrong results > > > > > > > > > > Yes, range queries, inequality comparisons and so on are broken > > > > > for unsigned data types, I think I mentioned this somewhere above. > > > > > > > > > > Again, in my opinion, we can document that SQL is not supported on > > > those > > > > > types, > > > > > end of story. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:25 PM Alexey Goncharuk < > > > > > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Folks, I think this is a reasonable request. I thought about this > > > when > > > > I > > > > > > was drafting the IEP, but hesitated to add these types right > away. > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with .NET > and > > > C++ > > > > :) > > > > > > I have some doubts that it actually works as expected, it needs > > some > > > > > > checking (will be glad if my concerns are false): > > > > > > > > > > > > - It's true that equality check works properly, but for SQL > > range > > > > > > queries it will break unless some special care is taken on > Java > > > > side: > > > > > > for > > > > > > u8 255 > 10, but in Java (byte)255 will be converted to -1, > > which > > > > will > > > > > > break the comparison. Since we don't have unsigned types now, > I > > > > doubt > > > > > it > > > > > > works. > > > > > > - There is an obvious cross-platform data loss when > "intuitive" > > > type > > > > > > mapping is used by a user (u8 corresponds to byte type in > .NET, > > > but > > > > to > > > > > > avoid values loss, a user will have to use short type in Java, > > and > > > > > > Ignite > > > > > > will also need to take care of the range check during > > > > serialization). > > > > > I > > > > > > think we can even allow to try to deserialize a value into > > > arbitrary > > > > > > type, > > > > > > but throw an exception if the range is out of bounds. > > > > > > > > > > > > Overall, I agree with Andrey's comments. > > > > > > Andrey, do you mind updating the IEP once all the details are > > settled > > > > > here? > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 24 нояб. 2020 г. в 18:19, Andrey Mashenkov < > > > > > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com > > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe uLong values beyond 2^63 can't be treated correctly > for > > > now > > > > > > > (WHERE x > y may return wrong results) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we could make "true" support for unsigned types, but > they > > > > will > > > > > > have > > > > > > > limitations on the Java side. > > > > > > > Thus, the one will not be able to map uint64 to Java long > > > primitive, > > > > > but > > > > > > to > > > > > > > BigInteger only. > > > > > > > As for indices, we could read uint64 to Java long, but treat > > > negative > > > > > > > values in a different way to preserve correct ordering. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > These limitations will affect only mixed environments when .Net > > and > > > > > Java > > > > > > > used to access the data. > > > > > > > Will this solution address your issues? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:45 PM Pavel Tupitsyn < > > > ptupit...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is how it works in Ignite since the beginning with .NET > > and > > > > C++ > > > > > :) > > > > > > > > You can use unsigned primitives as cache keys and values, as > > > fields > > > > > and > > > > > > > > properties, > > > > > > > > and in SQL queries (even in WHERE x=y clauses) - it works > > > > > transparently > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > the users. > > > > > > > > Java side knows nothing and treats those values as > > corresponding > > > > > signed > > > > > > > > types. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, this abstraction leaks in some cases only because > > there > > > > are > > > > > no > > > > > > > > corresponding type ids. > > > > > > > > That is why I'm proposing a very simple change to the > protocol > > - > > > > add > > > > > > type > > > > > > > > ids, but handle them the same way as signed counterparts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov < > > > > > > > > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise representation is > the > > > > same) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That way is impossible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Assume, you have a .NET class with a uByte field and map it > > to > > > > > > 'uint8' > > > > > > > > > column. > > > > > > > > > Then you set the field value to "250" and put the object > > into a > > > > > > table, > > > > > > > > > field value perfectly fits to a single byte 'int8' column. > > > > > > > > > But in Java you can't deserialize it to directly the Java > > > object > > > > > > field > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > 'byte' type, so we should map uint8 type to Java 'short' > type > > > > > > > > > because the one expected to see "250" as a value which > > doesn't > > > > fit > > > > > to > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > signed type. > > > > > > > > > For uLong the one will need a BigInteger field in Java. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL index either can't treat column value as Java 'byte' as > > is, > > > > > > because > > > > > > > > > after reading you will get a negative value, so it should > be > > > cast > > > > > to > > > > > > > > short > > > > > > > > > at first. (converted to BigInteger for uint64) > > > > > > > > > So, index on signed type will require a different > comparator. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That way doesn't look simpler. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:23 PM Pavel Tupitsyn < > > > > > ptupit...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think range narrowing is a good idea. > > > > > > > > > > Do you see any problems with the simple approach I > > described? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 4:01 PM Andrey Mashenkov < > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you are ok with narrowing range for unsigned types > > then > > > we > > > > > > could > > > > > > > > > add a > > > > > > > > > > > constraint for unsigned types on schema level (like > > > > nullability > > > > > > > flag) > > > > > > > > > > > and treat them as signed types in storage. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We are going with a separate storage type-system and > > binary > > > > > > > protocol > > > > > > > > > > > type-system, however most of type will match 1 to 1 > with > > > > > storage > > > > > > > > > (native) > > > > > > > > > > > type. > > > > > > > > > > > On .Net side you will either have a separate type id or > > > treat > > > > > > > > > serialized > > > > > > > > > > > value regarding a schema (signed or unsigned flag). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure users can ever foresee the consequences of > > > using > > > > > > > > unsigned > > > > > > > > > > > types. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Assume, a user used to unsigned types perfectly works > > with > > > > some > > > > > > > > > database, > > > > > > > > > > > then he turns into Ignite successor confession with our > > > > > "native" > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned-types support. > > > > > > > > > > > But later, he finds that he can use the power of Ignite > > > > Compute > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > Java > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > some tasks or a new app. > > > > > > > > > > > Finally, the user will either fail to use his unsigned > > data > > > > on > > > > > > Java > > > > > > > > due > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > face performance issues due to natural Java type system > > > > > > limitations > > > > > > > > > e.g. > > > > > > > > > > > conversion uLong to BigInteger. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that natively supported types with possible > > value > > > > > > ranges > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > limitations should be known. > > > > > > > > > > > So, the only question is what trade-off we found > > > acceptable: > > > > > > > > narrowing > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type range or use types of wider range on > > systems > > > > like > > > > > > > Java. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Igor Sapego < > > > > > isap...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I think it is not so hard to implement > > > comparison > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > unsigned > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers in > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL even in Java, so it does not seem to be a big > issue > > > > from > > > > > my > > > > > > > > > > > > perspective. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now to the usage of unsigned types from Java - I > think, > > > if > > > > a > > > > > > user > > > > > > > > > uses > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned type > > > > > > > > > > > > in a schema and is going to interact with it from > Java > > he > > > > > knows > > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > he > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > doing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mostly they are for use from platforms where they > have > > > > native > > > > > > > > support > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > widely > > > > > > > > > > > > used, like in C++ or .NET, where users currently have > > to > > > > > make a > > > > > > > > > manual > > > > > > > > > > > type > > > > > > > > > > > > casting > > > > > > > > > > > > or even just stop using unsigned types when they use > > > > Ignite. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 3:06 PM Pavel Tupitsyn < > > > > > > > > ptupit...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is much simpler: > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add protocol support for those types (basically, > > just > > > > add > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > > type > > > > > > > > > > > > ids) > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Treat uLong as long in Java (bitwise > representation > > > is > > > > > the > > > > > > > > same) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ANSI SQL does not have unsigned integers, so we can > > > > simply > > > > > > say > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned value relative comparison is not supported > > in > > > > SQL > > > > > > > > > (equality > > > > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > > > > work). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:40 PM Andrey Mashenkov < > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Pavel and Igor. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your ideas to have i8 or int8 instead of > > > > Integer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the naming doesn't address the issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree internal types should be portable across > > > > > different > > > > > > > > > systems > > > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without unsigned type support. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only issue here is that unsigned types cover > > > > > different > > > > > > > > > ranges. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's assume we want to introduce a uLong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't look like a big deal to add uLong type > > > > support > > > > > > at > > > > > > > > > > storage > > > > > > > > > > > > > level > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and fit it to a 8 bytes and then use it in e.g. > > .Net > > > > > only. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how we could support it in e.g. Java? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's keep in mind Long range is about (2^-63 .. > > > 2^63) > > > > > and > > > > > > > > uLong > > > > > > > > > > > range > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (0 .. 2^64) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The first option is to restrict range to (0 .. > > > > 2^63). > > > > > > This > > > > > > > > > > allows > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > > > > > > signed in e.g. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java with no conversion, but doesn't look like a > > > 'real' > > > > > > > > unsigned > > > > > > > > > > > uLong > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support. Things go worse when the user will use > > > uByte, > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > limitation > > > > > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make uByte totally unusable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The second one is to map unsigned types to a > > type > > > of > > > > > > wider > > > > > > > > > type > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > add > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a constraint for negative values. E.g. uLong to > > > > > BigInteger. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, we can't use primitive Java type for Long > here. > > > > > > However, > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > still > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to store uLong in 8 bytes, but have a > > > special > > > > > > > > comparator > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned types to avoid unwanted deserialization. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Pavel Tupitsyn < > > > > > > > > > > ptupit...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree, let's get rid of "long, short, byte" in > > the > > > > > > protocol > > > > > > > > > > > > definition. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can use Rust style, which is concise and > > > > > unambiguous: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i8, u8, i16, u16, etc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM Igor Sapego < > > > > > > > > > isap...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavel, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I totally support that. Also, if we are > aiming > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stronger platform-independance, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in our schemas we may want to support > > > bit-notation > > > > > > > (int32, > > > > > > > > > > > uint64)? > > > > > > > > > > > > > For > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "long" can mean a different type on different > > > > > platforms > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > it's > > > > > > > > > > > > easy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confuse > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them (happens often when using ODBC for > > example). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:34 PM Pavel > Tupitsyn > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > ptupit...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we should support unsigned data > > types: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uByte, uShort, uInt, uLong > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Java does not have them, but many other > > > languages > > > > > do, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with the growing number of thin clients > > > this > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > important. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, in current Ignite.NET > > > implementation > > > > > we > > > > > > > > store > > > > > > > > > > > > unsigned > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > values > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as signed internally, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but this is a huge pain when it comes to > > > > metadata, > > > > > > > binary > > > > > > > > > > > > objects, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (it is easy to deserialize int as uint when > > you > > > > > have > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > class, > > > > > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BinaryObject.GetField) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any objections? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM Andrey > > > > Mashenkov < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good point. Both serializers use > reflection > > > > API. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, we will allow users to configure > > > > static > > > > > > > schema > > > > > > > > > > along > > > > > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'strict' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema mode, we still need to validate > user > > > > > classes > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > client > > > > > > > > > > > > > nodes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > against > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the latest schema in the grid and > > reflection > > > > API > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > only > > > > > > > > > > > > way > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One can find a few articles on the > internet > > > on > > > > > how > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > enable > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > GraalVM. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll create a task for supporting > GraalVM, > > > and > > > > > > maybe > > > > > > > > > > someone > > > > > > > > > > > > who > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar with GraalVM will suggest a > > solution > > > > or > > > > > a > > > > > > > > proper > > > > > > > > > > > > > > workaround. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll do it a bit later. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If no workaround is found, we could allow > > > users > > > > > to > > > > > > > > write > > > > > > > > > > it's > > > > > > > > > > > > own > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > serializer, but I don't think it is a > good > > > idea > > > > > to > > > > > > > > expose > > > > > > > > > > any > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > internal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes to the public. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:55 AM Denis > > Magda < > > > > > > > > > > > dma...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey, thanks for the update, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does any of the serializers take into > > > > > > consideration > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native-image-generation feature of > > GraalVM? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.graalvm.org/reference-manual/native-image/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current binary marshaller, we > > > can't > > > > > even > > > > > > > > > > generate > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > native > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > image > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the code using our thin client > APIs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:39 AM Andrey > > > > > Mashenkov > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > andrey.mashen...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igniters, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to continue discussion of > > IEP-54 > > > > > > > > > (Schema-first > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope everyone who is interested had a > > > > chance > > > > > to > > > > > > > get > > > > > > > > > > > > familiar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal [1]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please, do not hesitate to ask > > questions > > > > and > > > > > > > share > > > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've prepared a prototype of > serializer > > > [2] > > > > > for > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > data > > > > > > > > > > > > > layout > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > described > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the proposal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In prototy, I compared 2 approaches > to > > > > > > > > (de)serialize > > > > > > > > > > > > objects, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses java reflection/unsafe API and > > > similar > > > > > to > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > > > already > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the second one generates > serializer > > > for > > > > > > > > > particular > > > > > > > > > > > user > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Janino library for compilation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second one shows better results in > > > > > benchmarks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can go with it as default > > > > > serializer > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection-based > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation as a fallback if > someone > > > > will > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > issues > > > > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a number of tasks under the > > > > > umbrella > > > > > > > > ticket > > > > > > > > > > [3] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > waiting > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assignee. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I'm going to create more tickets > > for > > > > > > schema > > > > > > > > > > manager > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > implementation, but would like to > > clarify > > > > > some > > > > > > > > > details. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought schemaManager on each node > > > should > > > > > > held: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Local mapping of "schema > version" > > > <--> > > > > > > > > validated > > > > > > > > > > > local > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key/value > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > classes pair. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Cluster-wide schema changes > > history. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the client side. Before any > > key-value > > > > API > > > > > > > > > operation > > > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > validate a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema for a given key-value pair. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is no local-mapping exists > > for a > > > > > given > > > > > > > > > > key-value > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster wide schema has a more recent > > > > version > > > > > > > then > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pair > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be validated against the > latest > > > > > version > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > local > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updated/actualized. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If an object doesn't fit to the > latest > > > > schema > > > > > > > then > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > depends > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mode: either fail the operation > > ('strict' > > > > > mode) > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > new > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapping > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > created and a new schema version > should > > > be > > > > > > > > propagated > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > cluster. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the server side we usually have no > > > > > key-value > > > > > > > > > classes > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > operate > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tuples. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As schema change history is available > > > and a > > > > > > tuple > > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > > > > > > schema > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it is possible to upgrade any > received > > > > tuple > > > > > to > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > last > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > desialization. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we could allow nodes to send > > > key-value > > > > > > pairs > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > previous > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > versions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (if > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > they didn't receive a schema update > > yet) > > > > > > without > > > > > > > > > > > reverting > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made by a node with newer classes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Val, Ivan did you mean the > same? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-13618/modules/commons > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [3] > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13616 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 9:21 AM Ivan > > > > > Pavlukhin > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please do not ignore history. We > had > > a > > > > > thread > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > > many > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bright > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas. We can resume it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Applicability-of-term-cache-to-Apache-Ignite-td36541.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2020-09-10 0:08 GMT+03:00, Denis > > Magda > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > dma...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Val, makes sense, thanks for > > > > explaining. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that we need to have a > > separate > > > > > > > > discussion > > > > > > > > > > > thread > > > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "table" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "cache" terms substitution. I'll > > > > > appreciate > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > > > start > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sharing pointers to any relevant > > IEPs > > > > and > > > > > > > > > reasoning > > > > > > > > > > > > > behind > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggested > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:01 PM > > > Valentin > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko > > > > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Denis, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I guess the wording in the IEP > is > > a > > > > > little > > > > > > > bit > > > > > > > > > > > > > confusing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> that you should not create > nested > > > > POJOs, > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > > > rather > > > > > > > > > > > > > inline > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single POJO that is mapped to a > > > > > particular > > > > > > > > > schema. > > > > > > > > > > > In > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > words, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> POJOs are not supported. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Alex, is this correct? Please > let > > me > > > > > know > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > I'm > > > > > > > > > > > > missing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> As for the "cache" term, I agree > > > that > > > > it > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > outdated, > > > > > > > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> what we can replace it with. > > "Table" > > > > is > > > > > > > > tightly > > > > > > > > > > > > > associated > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> SQL is optional in our case. Do > > you > > > > want > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > create a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separate > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> about this? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -Val > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:37 PM > > Denis > > > > > > Magda < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dma...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Val, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I've checked the IEP again and > > > have a > > > > > few > > > > > > > > > > > questions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Arbitrary nested objects and > > > > > collections > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > > allowed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > column > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> values. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Nested POJOs should either be > > > > inlined > > > > > > > into > > > > > > > > > > > schema, > > > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stored > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOBs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Could you provide a DDL code > > > snippet > > > > > > > showing > > > > > > > > > how > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > inlining > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > POJOs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> supposed to work? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Also, we keep using the terms > > > "cache" > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > "table" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > throughout > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IEP. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the right time to discuss an > > > > alternate > > > > > > name > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replace > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> too? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Personally, the "table" should > > stay > > > > and > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > "cache" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > go > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> considering > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that SQL is one of the primary > > APIs > > > > in > > > > > > > Ignite > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DDL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> out-of-the-box. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Denis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:26 PM > > > > > Valentin > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ivan, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I see your point. I agree > that > > > with > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > automatic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updates > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > step > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > schema-last territory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Actually, if we support > > automatic > > > > > > > > evolution, > > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > creating a cache without > schema > > > and > > > > > > > > inferring > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > insert. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> In > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > other words, we can have both > > > > > > > > "schema-first" > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-last" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > modes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Alexey, what do you think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > -Val > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 5:59 > AM > > > > Alexey > > > > > > > > > > Goncharuk < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Ivan, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thank you, I got your > concern > > > > now. > > > > > As > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > terminology, I am > absolutely > > > fine > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > changing > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> fits > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > the approach best. Dynamic > or > > > > > > evolving > > > > > > > > > schema > > > > > > > > > > > > > sounds > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > great. I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > corresponding changes to > the > > > IEP > > > > > once > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > settle > > > > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > name. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в > 11:33, > > > Ivan > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vololo...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Hi Val, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Thank you for your > answer! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > My understanding is a > > little > > > > bit > > > > > > > > > different. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evolution > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > definitely should be > > > possible. > > > > > But > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > see > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > main > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difference > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "how > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema is updated". I > > treat a > > > > > > common > > > > > > > > SQL > > > > > > > > > > > > approach > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Schema > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and data manipulation > > > > operations > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > clearly > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > separated > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> enables > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > interesting capabilities, > > > e.g. > > > > > > > > preventing > > > > > > > > > > > > > untended > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > by > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > mistaken data operations, > > > > > > restricting > > > > > > > > > user > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > permissions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > change > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > schema. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Schema-first means that > > > > schema > > > > > > > exists > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > advance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> stored > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > data > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is compliant with it - > > that's > > > > > > exactly > > > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > A schema-last approach > > > > mentioned > > > > > in > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > also > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assumes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > exists, but it is > inferred > > > from > > > > > > data. > > > > > > > > Is > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > similar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > proposing approach? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > And I would like to say, > > that > > > > my > > > > > > main > > > > > > > > > > concern > > > > > > > > > > > > so > > > > > > > > > > > > > > far > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mostly > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > terminology. And I > suppose > > if > > > > it > > > > > > > > confuses > > > > > > > > > > me > > > > > > > > > > > > then > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > others > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > might > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > confused as well. My > > feeling > > > is > > > > > > > closer > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > "dynamic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > liquid > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > may > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > evolving schema". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > 2020-09-07 0:47 > GMT+03:00, > > > > > Valentin > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko > > > > > > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > Hi Ivan, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > I don't see an issue > with > > > > that. > > > > > > > > > > > Schema-first > > > > > > > > > > > > > > means > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exists > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > advance and all the > > stored > > > > data > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > compliant > > > > > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> exactly > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > what > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > is proposed. There are > no > > > > > > > > restrictions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prohibiting > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > schema. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > -Val > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at > > 9:52 > > > > PM > > > > > > Ivan > > > > > > > > > > > > Pavlukhin < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> vololo...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Alexey, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> I am a little bit > > confused > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > terminology. > > > > > > > > > > > > > My > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > conforms > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> to a survey [1] (see > > part > > > X > > > > > Semi > > > > > > > > > > > Structured > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> really > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > treat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> a "dynamic schema" > > > approach > > > > > as a > > > > > > > > kind > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "schema-first"? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://people.cs.umass.edu/~yanlei/courses/CS691LL-f06/papers/SH05.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> 2020-09-02 1:53 > > GMT+03:00, > > > > > Denis > > > > > > > > > Magda < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dma...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you > > > please > > > > > > > > elaborate > > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case > > for > > > > > > > Hibernate > > > > > > > > > > > running > > > > > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, > > > what > > > > is > > > > > > > > missing > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my > > > > understanding, > > > > > > all > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > need > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing > > something? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Good point, yes, if > > all > > > > the > > > > > > ORM > > > > > > > > > > > > integrations > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> APIs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > internally, then > they > > > can > > > > > > easily > > > > > > > > > > > translate > > > > > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Entity > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> into > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > an > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > INSERT/UPDATE > > statement > > > > that > > > > > > > lists > > > > > > > > > all > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object's > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Luckily, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > our > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Spring Data > > integration > > > is > > > > > > > already > > > > > > > > > > based > > > > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > APIs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > needs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > to be improved once > > the > > > > > > > > schema-first > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supported. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > would > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > solve a ton of > > usability > > > > > > issues. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > I would revise the > > > > Hibernate > > > > > > > > > > integration > > > > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > well > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Ignite > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > 3.0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> dev > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > phase. Can't say if > > it's > > > > > used > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > lot > > > > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > getting > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > traction > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > sure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > @Michael Pollind, > I'll > > > > loop > > > > > > you > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > long > > > > > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you've > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > started > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > working > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Ignite support for > > > > Micornaut > > > > > > > Data > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://micronaut-projects.github.io/micronaut-data/latest/guide/> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > came across some > > > > challenges. > > > > > > > Just > > > > > > > > > > watch > > > > > > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > That's > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > what > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > coming in Ignite > 3.0. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > Denis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 > > at > > > > 5:11 > > > > > > PM > > > > > > > > > > Valentin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Hi Denis, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Generally > speaking, I > > > > > believe > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > natively > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> addresses the issue > > if > > > > > > > duplicate > > > > > > > > > > fields > > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > value > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> objects, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> because > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> schema will be > > created > > > > for > > > > > a > > > > > > > > cache, > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > object, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > happens > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Basically, the > schema > > > > will > > > > > > > define > > > > > > > > > > > whether > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > primary > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> key > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> not, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and which fields > are > > > > > included > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > case > > > > > > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > we > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> would > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> have must be > > compliant > > > > with > > > > > > > this, > > > > > > > > > so > > > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > becomes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fairly > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > easy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > work > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> data as with a set > of > > > > > > records, > > > > > > > > > rather > > > > > > > > > > > > than > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key-value > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pairs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> However, could you > > > please > > > > > > > > elaborate > > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > relation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> ORM? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Is there a use case > > for > > > > > > > Hibernate > > > > > > > > > > > running > > > > > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> (I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > haven't > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> seen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> one so far)? If so, > > > what > > > > is > > > > > > > > missing > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> side to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> support > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> this? In my > > > > understanding, > > > > > > all > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > need > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SQL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > API > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> have. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> Am I missing > > something? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> -Val > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, > 2020 > > at > > > > > 2:08 > > > > > > PM > > > > > > > > > Denis > > > > > > > > > > > > > Magda < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> dma...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Val, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > I would propose > > > adding > > > > > > > another > > > > > > > > > > point > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > motivations > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > list > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > which > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > related to the > ORM > > > > > > frameworks > > > > > > > > > such > > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Spring > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hibernate, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Micronaut > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > many others. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Presently, the > > > storage > > > > > > engine > > > > > > > > > > > requires > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distinguish > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > key > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > objects > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > from > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > value ones that > > > > > complicate > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > usage > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ORM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > frameworks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > (especially if a > > key > > > > > object > > > > > > > > > > comprises > > > > > > > > > > > > > > several > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fields). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > More > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > this > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> can > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > found here: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSSION-Key-and-Value-fields-with-same-name-and-SQL-DML-td47557.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > It will be nice > if > > > the > > > > > new > > > > > > > > > > > schema-first > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > approach > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > allows > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > work > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > single entity > > object > > > > when > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > comes > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ORMs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> need to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > split > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > entity into a key > > and > > > > > > value. > > > > > > > > Just > > > > > > > > > > > want > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Ignite > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > 3.0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > has > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > all the essential > > > > public > > > > > > APIs > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > single-entity > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > based > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > approach. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > What do you > think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > Denis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Aug 28, > > 2020 > > > at > > > > > > 3:50 > > > > > > > PM > > > > > > > > > > > > Valentin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kulichenko < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > One of the big > > > > changes > > > > > > > > proposed > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignite > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3.0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > so-called > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > "schema-first > > > > > approach". > > > > > > To > > > > > > > > add > > > > > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarity, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > started > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > writing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > IEP > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > for this > change: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-54%3A+Schema-first+Approach > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > Please take a > > look > > > > and > > > > > > let > > > > > > > me > > > > > > > > > > know > > > > > > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> immediate > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > thoughts, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > suggestions, or > > > > > > objections. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > -Val > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> Ivan Pavlukhin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > Ivan Pavlukhin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Живи с улыбкой! :D > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > >
