Re: [cdi-dev] Async event proposal
On 06/04/2015 10:08 AM, Antoine Sabot-Durand wrote:
In our initial proposal fireAsync basic signature was
<U extends T> CompletionStage<U> fireAsync(U event);
I simplified the signature with
CompletionStage<void> fireAsync (U event);
As the original fire method returns void I found confusing to return
anything something letting think that a value (different than a
status) was obtained from the observers notification.
The reason for the original signature was that it allows the event
payload to be processed further once all the observers finish. This is
useful in the common pattern where you fire a mutable event, let the
(possibly unknown) observers contribute to the result by mutating the
payload, and then work with the payload when all finish. See e.g.
https://github.com/weld/core/blob/master/tests-arquillian/src/test/java/o...
This of course assumes mutable event payloads are supported.