Using the BinaryObject API, which is used out-of-the-box by Ignite, we get this exception that I am trying to solve.
We just want a simple in-memory cache, so I am not sure why I would use a heavy Ignite implementation as an inmem DB with SQL. That is overkill. And... why would that solve the problem... does Ignite internally store the data different then? I still cant grasp that this simple thing does not work and that it looks like I am the only one on this planet that uses Ignite with a distributed application that does rolling updates. With the info I have right now, I can only conclude that Ignite can not serve as a distributed cache because you can not redeploy your application with rolling updates (and thus guarantee 24/7 uptime) if your model (the data you cache) changes (as example : add a new value to an enum). -- Sent from: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/
