Answered. On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org> wrote:
> Vladimir, I commented in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4480 > and https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4479 and > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4476 > > I agree that current approach for async API is not good at all and needs to > be fixed. > > As far as callback semantics, it does not seem to be a solution since user > may not pass executor parameter and will get the same starvation again. We > just need to add proper documentation and maybe implement smarter > starvation checker similar to one in striped pool. > > > > --Yakov > > 2016-12-22 14:09 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>: > > > And several more improvements to future API: > > 1) Remove startTime() and duration() methods: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4479 > > 2) Fix broken cancellation semantics: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4480 > > > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Gents, > > > > > > I created tickets for all proposed improvements: > > > 1) Nice async API: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4475 > > > 2) Do not process IO messages synchronously for local node: > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4476 > > > 3) Better IgniteFuture API and callback semantics: https://issues. > > > apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4477 > > > > > > Please review it and let me know if you have any comments. > > > > > > Vladimir. > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 4:32 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > dsetrak...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Would be nice if someone would prototype a new cache API and post the > > >> generated javadoc here. I think we all will benefit from reviewing it. > > >> > > >> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Vladimir Ozerov < > voze...@gridgain.com > > > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Async API rework is mechanical addition of ~100 methods through > > >> copy-paste. > > >> > Should not take more than a day to implement and more than another > day > > >> to > > >> > rework tests. > > >> > > > >> > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:00 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > >> dsetrak...@apache.org > > >> > > > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > How difficult is this change? Does not look like it can be done > > >> > overnight. > > >> > > > > >> > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Vladimir Ozerov < > > >> voze...@gridgain.com> > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > We already discussed this several months ago in other thread. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > "Async" methods is the most simple and straight API possible. > .NET > > >> > world > > >> > > > goes this way all over their frameworks and nobody died. > Hazelcast > > >> also > > >> > > > goes this way. Java goes this way (see CompletableFuture). This > is > > >> > common > > >> > > > and well-known practice. The most impacted part of our API will > be > > >> > cache, > > >> > > > +33 new methods. Though, I do not see how it can affect learning > > >> curve. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Agree that we should deprecate AsyncSupport gradually and remove > > it > > >> no > > >> > > > earlier than in Apache Ignite 3.0. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > >> > > dsetrak...@apache.org> > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Sergi Vladykin < > > >> > > > sergi.vlady...@gmail.com > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > +1 For removing withAsync. It is a broken design. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Sergi, do you also want to add all the async methods to the > main > > >> API > > >> > or > > >> > > > do > > >> > > > > you have some other design in mind? > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
