<div dir="ltr">I like the idea of returning the event payload but it would be inconsistent with the existing fire(U event) method. Am I right, that changing the old fire method in the same way is not an option?<div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Thorben</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>--</div><div><b>Thorben Janssen</b><br></div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://twitter.com/thjanssen123" target="_blank">@thjanssen123</a><br></div><a href="http://www.thoughts-on-java.org" target="_blank">www.thoughts-on-java.org</a> <br></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-06-05 19:43 GMT+02:00 Antoine Sabot-Durand <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:antoine@sabot-durand.net" target="_blank">antoine@sabot-durand.net</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Yes Jozef,<br><br><div><span style="font-size:13.1999998092651px;line-height:19.7999992370605px">As said multiple times we cannot prevent users to mute payload in async events but they should know that it's their responsibility to do so (no concurrency or thread safety guaranteed by us).</span><br></div><div>I have no problem to revert this. My idea was to be consistent with synchronous observer returning void.</div><div>I also feared that returning an handle on the payload could confuse users, making them think that we manage concurrency and thread safety on the payload when we don't do it.</div><div>Now, adding the payload to the async pipeline coule make sense...</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>Antoine</div></font></span><span class=""><div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">Le ven. 5 juin 2015 à 08:49, Jozef Hartinger <<a href="mailto:jharting@redhat.com" target="_blank">jharting@redhat.com</a>> a écrit :<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On 06/04/2015 10:08 AM, Antoine Sabot-Durand wrote:<br>
> In our initial proposal fireAsync basic signature was<br>
><br>
> <U extends T> CompletionStage<U> fireAsync(U event);<br>
><br>
> I simplified the signature with<br>
><br>
> CompletionStage<void> fireAsync (U event);<br>
><br>
> As the original fire method returns void I found confusing to return<br>
> anything something letting think that a value (different than a<br>
> status) was obtained from the observers notification.<br>
<br>
The reason for the original signature was that it allows the event<br>
payload to be processed further once all the observers finish. This is<br>
useful in the common pattern where you fire a mutable event, let the<br>
(possibly unknown) observers contribute to the result by mutating the<br>
payload, and then work with the payload when all finish. See e.g.<br>
<a href="https://github.com/weld/core/blob/master/tests-arquillian/src/test/java/org/jboss/weld/tests/experimental/event/async/complex/ComplexAsyncEventTest.java#L74" target="_blank">https://github.com/weld/core/blob/master/tests-arquillian/src/test/java/org/jboss/weld/tests/experimental/event/async/complex/ComplexAsyncEventTest.java#L74</a><br>
<br>
This of course assumes mutable event payloads are supported.<br>
</blockquote></div></span></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
cdi-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org">cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev</a><br>
<br>
Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the code under the Apache License, Version 2 (<a href="http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html" target="_blank">http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html</a>). For all other ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other intellectual property rights inherent in such information.<br></blockquote></div><br></div>