[cdi-dev] async: back to completion future?

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

2016-03-07 9:07 GMT+01:00 Martin Kouba <mkouba at redhat.com>:

>
> Dne 7.3.2016 v 09:03 Romain Manni-Bucau napsal(a):
>
>>
>> Le 7 mars 2016 08:35, "Martin Kouba" <mkouba at redhat.com
>> <mailto:mkouba at redhat.com>> a écrit :
>>  >
>>  > Dne 6.3.2016 v 15:39 Romain Manni-Bucau napsal(a):
>>  >
>>  >> Hi guys,
>>  >>
>>  >> as a user having a ComlpetionStage makes me loose some JDK utilities,
>>  >> can we move back to CompletionFuture?
>>  >>
>>  >> It would allow for instance:
>>  >>
>>  >> // doesn't work with CompletionStage
>>  >> CompletionFuture.allOf(event1.fireAsync(...), event2.fireAsync(...))
>>  >>        .then(...)
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > Well, this should work if the underlying CompletionStage impl
>> supports toCompletableFuture(), i.e. in Weld 3:
>>  >
>>
>> Yes but it is not natural to convert it IMO = we can do better
>>
>>  > CompletableFuture.allOf(event1.fireAsync(...).toCompletableFuture(),
>> event2.fireAsync(...).toCompletableFuture())
>>  >
>>  > AFAIK the default async execution facility of CompletableFuture is
>> ForkJoinPool.commonPool() which is not a good fit for Java EE. Using the
>> CompletionStage interface allows us to wrap the async calls without the
>> specified executor (e.g. CompletionStage.thenApplyAsync(Function<? super
>> T, ? extends U>)) and supply a default one provided by the impl.
>>  >
>>
>> Should use the pool in which the evznt is fired then "then step" is
>> synchronous is my sample so all is decided at fire time
>>
>
> I don't talk about your particular example - I understand that it's not
> using async exec (although the "then()" method does not exist).
>
>
was supposed to represent the different flavours (thenRun, thenCompose,
...) ;).

That said I agree on the state switching the pool is better but with these
2 notes:

- could be better to hide these poorly designed methods then -> don't use
CompletionXXX but a CDI API with a bridge to CompletionX to let the user go
back on SE tools
- we still don't have a *standard* config for the pool(s) underlying CDI
features so it sounds as poor as SE solution IMO (at least a core/max/ttl
config in beans.xml)


>
>>  >
>>  >>
>>  >> Romain Manni-Bucau
>>  >> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
>>  >> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
>>  >> <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
>>  >> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Tomitriber
>>  >> <http://www.tomitribe.com>
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>  >> _______________________________________________
>>  >> cdi-dev mailing list
>>  >> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>>  >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>>  >>
>>  >> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses
>> the code under the Apache License, Version 2
>> (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas
>> provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other
>> intellectual property rights inherent in such information.
>>  >>
>>  >
>>  > --
>>  > Martin Kouba
>>  > Software Engineer
>>  > Red Hat, Czech Republic
>>
>>
> --
> Martin Kouba
> Software Engineer
> Red Hat, Czech Republic
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/attachments/20160307/35a6e6e7/attachment.html