Ivan, Ok, I've just thought if "fields are not included" then we need to bother about them by ourselves.
чт, 17 июн. 2021 г., 20:10 Ivan Daschinsky <ivanda...@gmail.com>: > Andrey, i'm sorry but what do you mean as additional code harness? Usually, > POJO is serialized simply as map. > > чт, 17 июн. 2021 г., 19:55 Andrey Mashenkov <andrey.mashen...@gmail.com>: > > > Hi Pavel, > > > > What you suggest looks promising: arbitrary object graph and platform > > independence aspects in particular. > > > > In IEP-54 we support only flat objects and only some standard types and > > assume inner objects of custom types will be serialized to byte[] somehow > > and their schema will not be managed by Ignite. > > And, we want to offer some default serializers to make it easier for > > end-user. > > > > AFAIU, MsgPack is suitable for the purpose as we don't want to invent yet > > another effective binary format. > > With an additional code harness, we can write object schema (field names) > > within the object itself. > > Is it right? > > > > I am just confused with "a schemaful way" and "field names are not > > included" in the same sentence. > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 4:46 PM Ivan Daschinsky <ivanda...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Also, it's well known use case of msgpack in the world of memory grids > -- > > > tarantool.io uses msgpack for clients binary protocol [1] > > > So writing connectors to tarantool is quite easy task. > > > > > > [1] -- > > > > https://www.tarantool.io/en/doc/latest/dev_guide/internals/box_protocol/ > > > > > > чт, 17 июн. 2021 г. в 16:15, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > Ivan, > > > > > > > > > Have you considered format with schema? > > > > > > > > 1. We should be able to serialize arbitrary user data on the client > > side. > > > > I think we don't want to require extra steps from the user. > > > > > > > > 2. MsgPack can be also used in a schemaful way, when user objects are > > > > written as arrays, not as maps - so that field names are not > included. > > > > > > > > > > > > > we should benchmark formats thoroughly > > > > > > > > Strictly speaking, the IEP is about the format (the spec), not about > > the > > > > implementation. > > > > The format itself is simple and efficient, there is nothing to make > it > > > > slower than anything else. > > > > C# impl proves this by beating every competitor [1]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please share your code for benchmarks? > > > > > > > > The code is linked in the IEP [2] > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://aloiskraus.wordpress.com/2019/09/29/net-serialization-benchmark-2019-roundup/ > > > > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/9178 > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 4:02 PM Ivan Daschinsky <ivanda...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Could you please share your code for benchmarks? > > > > > > > > > > чт, 17 июн. 2021 г. в 15:56, Ivan Daschinsky <ivanda...@gmail.com > >: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Pavel. Have you considered format with schema? Or schemaless > > of a > > > > > > candidate format was a prerequisite? > > > > > > As for me, msgpack is great, but I suppose that we should > benchmark > > > > > > formats thoroughly. And not only for Java. > > > > > > > > > > > > чт, 17 июн. 2021 г. в 15:29, Pavel Tupitsyn < > ptupit...@apache.org > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Igniters, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I have drafted an IEP on thin client serialization format [1], > > > > > >> please review and let me know what you think. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> [1] > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-75+Thin+Client+Serialization > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Sincerely yours, Ivan Daschinskiy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Sincerely yours, Ivan Daschinskiy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Sincerely yours, Ivan Daschinskiy > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > >
