Hi Yeah sounds like an improvement can be made. Feel free to log a JIRA. Also we love contributions so you are welcome to work on a patch. http://camel.apache.org/contributing.html
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Stefan Krause <[email protected]> wrote: > Currently I migrating a large application to Camel. In the past we use > ehCache directly and store complexe > nested data-structures as POJOs. The objects doesn't implement Serializable > interface. > > The ehCache accept both, Serializable instances and normal POJO objects. But > the Camel CacheProducer always tries to convert Objects to InputStream. This > fails in our case because no matching TypeConverter exits. > > Some years ago this was already a topic here ( > camel-cache-Using-Objects-for-cache > <http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/camel-cache-Using-Objects-for-cache-td477437.html> > ), but opening question: > / > Looking at EHCache API, it can support any object as long as it is > serializable, so camel-cache component should not try to convert payload > into byte[]. Or was there any specific reason to do so? / > > wasn't answered. So again: Does there any reason why CacheProducer wants to > store a byte[] instead the object. > > For now we will replace the Camel CacheProducer. > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://camel.465427.n5.nabble.com/Caching-POJOs-no-serializable-and-no-InputStream-tp5738138.html > Sent from the Camel - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Claus Ibsen ----------------- Red Hat, Inc. Email: [email protected] Twitter: davsclaus Blog: http://davsclaus.com Author of Camel in Action: http://www.manning.com/ibsen
