Ivan,
Yes, this proposal is about the binary protocol - the way we serialize
primitive values,
the foundation for the thin client protocol.
Key-value API still has some uncertainty around it, we'll discuss it
separately.
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 2:31 PM Ivan Daschinsky wrote:
> Pavel, let me c
Pavel, let me clarify one thing.
1. If this proposal is about binary protocol, then there is no objection I
suppose.
2. If this proposal about serialization of key-value, there are some
uncertainties, especially about complex objects. In this case this proposal
needs more work.
ср, 23 июн. 2021 г
Igniters,
Looks like there are no objections and we can accept the proposal.
I will close it tomorrow and move on to the thin client protocol itself.
On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 12:10 PM Ivan Daschinsky
wrote:
> >> To make it fair. Ignite uses thread-local reusable buffers, see [1].
> I know, but P
>> To make it fair. Ignite uses thread-local reusable buffers, see [1].
I know, but PooledMessageBufferOutput is not about thread-local, isn't it?
I'm not against about MsgPack, I'm for fair and not biased comparison.
I suppose that MsgPack is an ideal candidate for thin client binary
protocol, n
Ivan,
> why do you use PooledMessageBufferOutput in benchmarks?
To make it fair. Ignite uses thread-local reusable buffers, see [1].
> why packer from msgpack-core show better performance than
> BinaryWriter. And I suppose that benchmark is not quite fair.
MsgPack writes and reads less bytes,
Andrey, here we discuss serialization format, as far as I understand.
Current implementation of ignite binary object serialization can be
rewritten.
If we do not care about fast (O(1)) field lookup, about schema validation
and so on, msgpack is a really good option. It is also good for client
binar
Ivan, thankd for clarification.
Binarilizable interface forces user to write serialization code. We can
support this or similar interface.
But I'd like Ignite has some default serializer in addition. It can be also
useful e.g. in compute for param and result serialization.
BinaryObjectBuider requ
>> Double checked -- there is not any links to PR either in IEP or in jira
issue
Sorry, there is a link in IEP, but not in jira ticket.
чт, 17 июн. 2021 г. в 21:39, Ivan Daschinsky :
> Andrey,
> >> arbitrary object graph
> Also, that is not true, msgpack format doesn't handle circular graphs.
> T
Andrey,
>> arbitrary object graph
Also, that is not true, msgpack format doesn't handle circular graphs.
Think about msgpack as binary json. You couldn't understand full structure
of message if you didn't deserialize it fully before, maps and arrays are
serialized just as contiguos chunks
of value
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 :
> 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 A
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 :
> Hi Pavel,
>
> What you suggest looks promising: arbitrary object graph and platform
> independence aspects in particular.
>
> In IEP-54 we
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 manage
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, P
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
Could you please share your code for benchmarks?
чт, 17 июн. 2021 г. в 15:56, Ivan Daschinsky :
> 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 thoroughl
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 :
> Igniters,
>
> I have drafted a
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
17 matches
Mail list logo
