Hello!
If we do improve it, I think we should go for a full re-think as opposed to
a single breaking change that doesn't actually improve that much.
Nevertheless, I think we can commit some improvements with opt-in
BinaryConfiguration.
Regards,
--
Ilya Kasnacheev
сб, 11 июл. 2020 г. в 01:27,
Ok gotcha, so it is not going to make it.
Just to note that we are dragging this since before v2.0 and just a reminder
that someone else tried a similar thing before v2 and it got blocked because
it was too much of a change for v2.
Typically the type of things that we can never change because it
Hello!
Yes, I think this is a sensible approach.
Regards,
--
Ilya Kasnacheev
ср, 8 июл. 2020 г. в 14:46, Ivan Daschinsky :
> I think that this feature can be handled as compactFooter. For example, C++
> doesn't support compactFooter and it is not an issue.
> Of course, this feature should be
I think that this feature can be handled as compactFooter. For example, C++
doesn't support compactFooter and it is not an issue.
Of course, this feature should be disabled by default, and should be
enabled explicitly in BinaryConfiguration.
Also, subsequent issues in jira about this feature suppor
Hello!
I think this is a blocker for this change. We already have binary format
published:
https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/binary-client-protocol-data-format#complex-object
Arguably, we cannot change it in a minor version of Apache Ignite, so this
change has to target AI 3.0.
Extending this
Hi!
Ilya, unfortunatelly yes, subsequent changes should be made in C++, .NET
and other platform code.
ср, 8 июл. 2020 г. в 12:22, Ilya Kasnacheev :
> Hello fellow devs,
>
> I just wanted to ask, how would this Binary Object format change affect
> thin clients? C++/.Net nodes? Etc?
>
> Is it fully
Hello fellow devs,
I just wanted to ask, how would this Binary Object format change affect
thin clients? C++/.Net nodes? Etc?
Is it fully backwards compatible or not?
I think that realistically, we can only add binary-incompatible changes to
Binary Object format in 3.0.
Regards,
--
Ilya Kasnac
A side note. Now we have a neat URL for TC bot
https://mtcga.ignite.apache.org/ (along with one in a gridgain
domain).
2020-07-07 18:43 GMT+03:00, Zhenya Stanilovsky :
>
> request it, check for example [1]
>
> also you need to run [2] tests.
>
> [1]
> http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nab
request it, check for example [1]
also you need to run [2] tests.
[1]
http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Phani-Introduction-td47788.html
[2] https://mtcga.gridgain.com
>Hello,
>
>Look at the ticket and the only comment I can see is creating a branch on
>git in the main re
Sorry I do not actual get what are you opposing? the compress of the binary
or the null compaction or both?
And can you ellaborate on why you are opposing it?
--
Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/
I`m currently against this approach, everyone can previously compress Binary
Object for further using, no additional code need here. This discussion only
about currently not optimal null storing and looks like we can improve it
without performance pay.
>Понедельник, 25 мая 2020, 13:42 +0
11 matches
Mail list logo
