Inline:
> On 15 Mar 2017, at 10:59, Ryan Emerson wrote:
>
> Comments inline.
>
> - Original Message -
>> +100 to use a separate marshaller for user types, but I think the
>> persistence configuration is the wrong place for it. Users shouldn't
>> have to implement an AdvancedExternalizer
Hmmm, we've already discussed moving from the current internal/external
marshaller architecture, where even user types are marshalled with internal
marshaller, to an internal/user marshaller architecture where user types are
only marshalled by the user marshaller. This is mentioned in [1] and th
Comments inline.
- Original Message -
> +100 to use a separate marshaller for user types, but I think the
> persistence configuration is the wrong place for it. Users shouldn't
> have to implement an AdvancedExternalizer for efficient replication
> between nodes if they already have a mars
+100 to use a separate marshaller for user types, but I think the
persistence configuration is the wrong place for it. Users shouldn't
have to implement an AdvancedExternalizer for efficient replication
between nodes if they already have a marshaller that's efficient
enough for use in a store.
I w
Hi All,
Currently the CacheWriterInterceptor utilises the internal marshaller for
marshalling entries before they are sent to the configured cache stores. This
causes several problems [1], most notably that changes to the internal
marshaller make stored data incompatible across Infinispan versi
