Just a note from the platforms guy: Solution with table-level configuration is going to be significantly harder to implement for platforms and ODBC then field-level one.
Also, what about binary objects, which are not stored in cache, but being marshalled? Best Regards, Igor On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 3:40 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur <daradu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > Encoding must be set on per field basis. This will give us as most > > flexible > > > solution at the cost of 1-byte overhead. > > > > > Vova, I agree that the encoding should be set on per-field basis, but > at > > > the table level, not at a cell level. > > > > Dmitriy, Vladimir, > > Let's use both approaches :-) > > We can add parameter to CacheConfiguration. > > If parameter specifie to use cache level encoding then marshaller will > use > > encoding in a cache, > > otherwise marshaller will use per-field encoding. > > Of course only if it doesn't complicate the solution. > > > > > I think that it will complicate the solution and will complicate the > marshalling protocol. The advantage of specifying the encoding at > table/cache level is that we don't need to add extra encoding bytes to the > marshalling protocol. > > I think Vova was suggesting encoding at the cell level, not at the field > level, which seems to be redundant to me. > > Vova, do you agree? >
