Hi, It's also not working with PRIMARY_SYNC if you do gets.
I've created an issue: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3505 You may watch it to be notified on a progress. Thanks for participating in Apache Ignite's community. 2016-07-19 8:05 GMT+03:00 pragmaticbigdata <amits...@gmail.com>: > Please see my comments below > > > Currently you have to make a copy of BinaryObject for each cache > operation > > because it's not immutable and internally caches some information for > > performance reasons. > > Isn't the BinaryObject not bound > < > http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Ignite-client-reads-old-metadata-even-after-cache-is-destroyed-and-recreated-tp5800p5823.html > > > to any cache? > Also note that adding the same binary object to two caches works if the > synchronization mode of the replicated cache is PRIMARY_SYNC and not > FULL_SYNC. Why would this be working? > > > Do you have a real case then you need to put a lot of binary object keys > > to multiple caches? > > I was trying to simulate a workaround for the IGNITE-1897 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1897> where I maintain a > replicated cache for all the entries that are added/updated in a > transaction. Hence I am adding the same key/value pair to two caches. > > > BTW, if you are using BinaryObject key with only single standard java > type > > it's simpler to just use the type as a cache key. > > No I do have multiple fields as part of the BinaryObject. Its just for > reproducing the issue I added one field > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/Adding-a-binary-object-to-two-caches-fails-with-FULL-SYNC-write-mode-configured-for-the-replicated-ce-tp6343p6366.html > Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > -- Best regards, Alexei Scherbakov
