Thanks Darrel and Michael for your suggestion and will evaluate which suits
best for our use case.
-
Deepak
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 3:42 AM, Darrel Schneider
wrote:
> Mike is correct that the first time you ask a VMCachedDeserializable for
> the deserialized value that the deserialized value
Mike is correct that the first time you ask a VMCachedDeserializable for
the deserialized value that the deserialized value will "stick" in the
VMCachedDeserializable. If anyone then asks that VMCachedDeserializable for
the serialized value it has to serialize it each time since it is now stuck
as
The rule is, if you deserialize the object in the server side, Geode keeps
the deserialized version of it around.
As for updating in place...this is the position that the docs for
Commercial GemFire take on that subject:
"If you do not have the cache copy-on-read attribute set to true, do not
cha
Hello Geode Team,
I am working on a use case where I want to store the java object. I want to
avoid the serialization and deserialization while reading on server
(function execution).
Also while updating I would like to update in-place rather than to create
copy of object, modify and store it agai
