I think I like Sergey's idea. Any way to make it backward compatible?
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Sergi Vladykin <[email protected]>
wrote:
> In my view we should not pollute sync APIs with all async methods,
> definitely we have to separate them
> for better UX.
>
> Currently on Java we have IgniteAsyncSupport with method withAsync() which
> returns the same sync API
> but that API works in broken manner. Instead it should look like the
> following IMO
>
> interface AsyncSupport<X> {
> X async();
> }
>
> Where X will be an interface with respective async API. For example for
> IngneCache we will have AsyncCache
> with all the respective async variants of all methods. Like this
>
> interface IgniteCache<K,V> extends AsyncSupport<AsyncCache<K,V>> {
> V get(K key);
> }
>
>
> interface AsyncCache<K,V> {
> IgniteFuture<V> get(K key);
> }
>
> From implementation standpoint both interfaces can be implemented by the
> same class but for user API
> they will be conveniently separated. Implementation of every sync method is
> trivial if we have
> async counterpart: just call get() on received future.
>
> From documentation point of view we just have to write on each method that
> it is a async variant of some
> method on main API like following:
>
> /**
> * Asynchronous variant of method {@link IgniteCache#get(Object)}.
> */
>
> This way we will not need to maintain the same docs for all sync and async
> methods.
>
> Sorry, I'm not an expert in .Net but I believe this approach will fit .Net
> as well, so it can be consistent across platforms.
>
> Sergi
>
>
>
> 2015-10-12 19:10 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <[email protected]>:
>
> > Do I understand correctly that you are suggesting adding "Async(..)"
> > counterparts for all the synchronous methods?
> >
> > Are there any objections about this? If we do it in .NET, then we might
> as
> > well do it in Java, because in my view the same reasoning can be made for
> > Java. This will cause significant proliferation of Async methods. For
> > example just on IgniteCache API, we will have to add about 40 Async()
> > methods.
> >
> > D.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 3:45 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > No. "await" is actually return from the method immediately. Let me show
> > it
> > > again:
> > >
> > > async Task<int> GetAndMultiply() {
> > > Task<int> res = cache.GetAsync(1);
> > >
> > > await res;
> > >
> > > return res.Result * res.Result;
> > > }
> > >
> > > maps to the following pseudo-code in Java:
> > >
> > > Future<Integer> getAndMultiply() {
> > > Future<Integer> res = cache.getAsync(1);
> > >
> > > return res.chain((f) => {
> > > return f.get() * f.get();
> > > });
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Is current thread blocked until "await" instruction is completed in
> > > > parallel thread?
> > > >
> > > > --Yakov
> > > >
> > > > 2015-10-12 10:41 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <[email protected]>:
> > > >
> > > > > Example with Get() operation:
> > > > >
> > > > > async Task<int> GetAndMultiply() {
> > > > > // This line is executed in current thread.
> > > > > Task<int> res = cache.GetAsync(1);
> > > > >
> > > > > await res;
> > > > >
> > > > > // This code is executed in another thread when res is ready.
> > > > > int mul = res.Result * res.Result;
> > > > >
> > > > > return mul;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > > [email protected]
> > > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 3:42 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > [email protected]
> > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Guys, let's try keeping this topic focused on .Net please,
> > because
> > > > the
> > > > > > > product is not released yet and we can create any API we like.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dima, answering your question about async/await - this is
> > actually
> > > > > native
> > > > > > > continuation support in .Net. Consider the following .Net
> method:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > async void PutAndPrint() {
> > > > > > > await cache.PutAsync(1, 1);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Console.WriteLine("Put value to cache.");
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And what if the method putAsync would return a value. How would
> > this
> > > > code
> > > > > > change?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
