Dmitriy, How would that help me if, for example, my cache entries held references to some other non-"binarylizable" ;) resources (like JDBC connection, socket, etc)? In other words, in my case the cache entries are not plain Java beans or DTOs, but rather full fledged classes with behavior, state, and dependencies. Of course, there exist a proper work around for things like that, but I was hoping that a LOCAL cache (with copyOnGet disabled) would just work.
I feel the current implementation violates the principle of least surprise (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment). Regards Andrey > From: dsetrak...@apache.org > Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2015 00:32:37 -0800 > Subject: Re: LOCAL cache serializes the entries? > To: dev@ignite.apache.org > > On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 7:44 AM, Andrey Kornev <andrewkor...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > This design is unfortunate, but I understand the reason. My issue is not > > with performance impact of serialization, but with having to make my > > key/value serializable which is not always possible nor desirable. > > > Andrey, as you aware, in Ignite 1.5 objects will be stored in Ignite binary > format and won’t have to be Serializable. Will it work for you then?
