Andrey Novikov, Nusrat Shakarov,
Guys, we are still supporting java 8, this means that the project
should be compiled without errors on jdk 8 and jdk 11 (not only on jdk
17). You've already broken the compilation for jdk 8/jdk 11 twice
during the same activity ([1], [2]).
I've mentioned you in ti
Hi, dear community.
I would like to propose the design for supporting user objects in
Ignite 3. All APIs that can accept/return custom objects that are
not a part of Ignite 3 distribution are going to have additional
parameter -- argument/result marshaller.
I would appreciate any feedback, f
Hi, Aleksandr, thank you for the great effort!
Could you please explain how this protocol differs from the existing User
Object Serialization protocol? Why do we need another one?
On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 6:20 PM Aleksandr Pakhomov wrote:
> Hi, dear community.
>
> I would like to propose the des
Thanks for the question, Aleksandr. Can you clarify what do you mean by
existing User Object Serialization protocol? Am I right assuming that you
are talking about Mappers that are supported in Record and KV APIs?
--
Best regards,
Aleksandr Pakhomov
> On 11 Jul 2024, at 18:39, Aleksandr Polovt
No, I'm talking about the protocol described here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-67%3A+Networking+module#IEP67:Networkingmodule-UserObjectSerialization
On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 6:47 PM Aleksandr Pakhomov wrote:
> Thanks for the question, Aleksandr. Can you clarify what do
I see, we have to support not only Java classes but all
platforms (C++, Python, C#). So we can not use the
protocol from internal networking.
From the link you shared:
"User object serialization must follow Java Serialization API contracts"
--
Best regards,
Aleksandr Pakhomov
> On 11 Jul 2024
> From the link you shared: "User object serialization must follow Java
Serialization API contracts"
Yes, but this is about support for classes that extend Serializable, it
doesn't affect classes that don't extend anything.
On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 7:10 PM Aleksandr Pakhomov wrote:
> I see, we h
