On 03/18/2015 01:46 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
2015-03-18 13:35 GMT+01:00 Jozef Hartinger <jharting(a)redhat.com
<mailto:jharting@redhat.com>>:
On 03/18/2015 01:28 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>
>
> 2015-03-18 13:15 GMT+01:00 Jozef Hartinger <jharting(a)redhat.com
> <mailto:jharting@redhat.com>>:
>
>
> On 03/18/2015 11:16 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>
> sequentializing them arbitrarily just makes it not async
> anymore
>
> the event firing thread won't wait for event delivery so it
> is still async
>
>
> well doesn't change the fact you break original async need/wish
> doing it.
break what?
don't wait behavior, own thread model by call which is what async
means most of the time
Well, the thread firing an event won't wait for the
observers to
complete so I cannot see how it breaks your "original async need/wish".
Or do you associate "async" with splitting the work into as many
parallel threads as possible? If so then we have a mismatch in terminology.
>
> (+ think to the case you dont really have priorities you
> are just breaking the whole concept).
>
> If you do not have priorities (or they are the same) then it
> is most likely fine to notify the observers in parallel. If
> you however do have priorities then it makes sense IMO to
> take them into account. Doing otherwise just complicates the
> entire concept by adding an artificial constraint.
>
>
>
> point is you are introducing a model concept which is not aligned
> on the common model + doesn't even match correctly the async
> needs (what about onFailure() and onTimeout() which are mandatory
> when doing async)
what common model?
>
callbacks one which is the only one making async usable and prod
compatible
Which part is not aligned? In the current proposal you get a callback
when all observers complete or an exception occurs. In what order the
observers are called does not change anything about that.
> I tend to join Mark saying we should just do the minimum instead
> of wanting to do to much and providing something highly broken
> we'll need to fix in next version with more broken patterns.
> What's the need is the real question, not what would be cool to
> implement.
>
> Don't forget an async spec smells more and more strong with real
> async semantic and solutions so I guess the less we put in CDI
> now better it is.