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.
2015-03-18 13:35 GMT+01:00 Jozef Hartinger <jharting@redhat.com>:
On 03/18/2015 01:28 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
break what?
2015-03-18 13:15 GMT+01:00 Jozef Hartinger <jharting@redhat.com>:
On 03/18/2015 11:16 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
sequentializing them arbitrarily just makes it not async anymorethe 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.
don't wait behavior, own thread model by call which is what async means most of the time
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.what common model?
(+ 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)
callbacks one which is the only one making async usable and prod compatible
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.