Yeah, don't use base64. There's no point to that if you have a binary
data type available to you.
Will the clients of this hashmap know the types of the objects they
are retrieving? If so, my original suggestion of using binary types
stored and de/serializing at the application layer probably still
applies.
-Bryan
On Jun 7, 2008, at 9:58 AM, Marcus Herou wrote:
I'm not 100% sure why I switched, was thinking that the clients
could send
Base64 encoded strings back and forths but to be honest that's a
little
lame.
It's 5 mins work to switch back and I will do so...
/M
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 6:52 PM, Johan Stuyts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The only real constraint currently will be that the client need to
encode/decode objects to a string representation. I initially
made the
cache
store byte[] but switched to strings.
Why did you make the switch? Thrift has a binary type which does
what you
need and is supported by all language bindings. Using 'binary'
should remove
the need to encode the data as strings on the client side.
--
Kind regards,
Johan Stuyts
--
Marcus Herou CTO and co-founder Tailsweep AB
+46702561312
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.tailsweep.com/
http://blogg.tailsweep.com/
