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

On Mar 7, 2016, at 3:45 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 2016-03-07 9:07 GMT+01:00 Martin Kouba <mkouba(a)redhat.com&gt;: > > Dne 7.3.2016 v 09:03 Romain Manni-Bucau napsal(a): >> >> Le 7 mars 2016 08:35, "Martin Kouba" <mkouba(a)redhat.com >> <mailto:mkouba@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(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:cdi-dev@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 _______________________________________________ cdi-dev mailing list cdi-dev(a)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.