+1
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 9:53 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 indeed > > Le 1 févr. 2018 21:34, "Eugene Kirpichov" <kirpic...@google.com> a écrit : >> >> Reducing dependency on Guava in favor of something Java-standard sounds >> great, +1. >> >> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 11:53 AM Reuven Lax <re...@google.com> wrote: >>> >>> Unless there's something that doesn't work in Java 8 future, +1 to >>> migrating. >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 10:54 AM, Kenneth Knowles <k...@google.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Luke, Thomas, and I had some in-person discussions about the use of Java >>>> 8 futures and Guava futures in the portability support code. I wanted to >>>> bring our thoughts to the dev list for feedback. >>>> >>>> As background: >>>> >>>> - Java 5+ "Future" lacks the main purpose of future, which is async >>>> chaining. >>>> - Guava introduced ListenableFuture to do real future-oriented >>>> programming >>>> - Java 8 added CompletionStage which is more-or-less the expected >>>> interface >>>> >>>> It is still debatable whether Java got it right [1]. But since it is >>>> standardized, doesn't need to be shaded, etc, it is worth trying to just >>>> use >>>> it carefully in the right ways. So we thought to propose that we migrate >>>> most uses of Guava futures to Java 8 futures. >>>> >>>> What do you think? Have we missed an important problem that would make >>>> this a deal-breaker? >>>> >>>> Kenn >>>> >>>> [1] e.g. >>>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/38744943/listenablefuture-vs-completablefuture#comment72041244_39250452 >>>> and such discussions are likely to occur whenever you bring it up with >>>> someone who cares a lot about futures :-) >>> >>> >
