Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[FEATURE] ⚡ Add PreferSyncSerialization option #245

Closed
jodydonetti opened this issue May 19, 2024 · 3 comments
Closed

[FEATURE] ⚡ Add PreferSyncSerialization option #245

jodydonetti opened this issue May 19, 2024 · 3 comments
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Milestone

Comments

@jodydonetti
Copy link
Collaborator

jodydonetti commented May 19, 2024

Problem

Not really a problem, but it has been observed that in some situations async serialization and deserialization can be slower than the sync counterpart: this has nothing to do with FusionCache itself, but how serialization works in general.

It would be nice to allow users to specify a preference.

Solution

Add a new option called PreferSyncSerialization, that can allow the sync version to be preferred.

The default would be false for full backward compatibility.

@jodydonetti jodydonetti added the enhancement New feature or request label May 19, 2024
@jodydonetti jodydonetti added this to the v1.2.0 milestone May 19, 2024
@jodydonetti jodydonetti self-assigned this May 19, 2024
@jodydonetti
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Hi all, I just released v1.2.0-preview1 🥳

@viniciusvarzea
Copy link

Hello @jodydonetti, yeah, since async serialization/deserialization works well with streams comming from io tasks (network streams, file streams etc), for memory streams the sync versions works alittle better. The adittion of this parameter will help us to have a better performance.

@jodydonetti
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Hi all, FusionCache v1.2.0 is out 🥳

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants