[cdi-dev] async: back to completion future?
mkouba at redhat.com
Mon Mar 7 04:57:13 EST 2016
Dne 7.3.2016 v 09:45 Romain Manni-Bucau napsal(a):
> 2016-03-07 9:07 GMT+01:00 Martin Kouba <mkouba at redhat.com
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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
> >> can we move back to CompletionFuture?
> >> It would allow for instance:
> >> // doesn't work with CompletionStage
> >> CompletionFuture.allOf(event1.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
> > 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
Yep, this is one of the possible solutions. On the other hand, I don't
think it's poorly designed. CompletionStage defines the "default
asynchronous execution facility" and CDI spec states that the
CompletionStage returned by fireAsync methods is container-specific. The
impl may choose to clarify this "default asynchronous execution
facility", i.e. there's place for innovation...
> - 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)
I don't think this should be standardized...
> >> 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>
> <mailto: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
> the code under the Apache License, Version 2
> (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other
> 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
Red Hat, Czech Republic
More information about the cdi-dev