Vladimr, it sounds like what you are suggesting is allowing users specify
named executors in configuration and then use them from code, right? I
think I like this idea very much.
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>
wrote:
> Continuations is not very good idea. It is useful if user has simple logic
> when one job calls another from within the same execute/run/call method.
> But if you have complex logic with OOP abstractions and reusable
> components, nested job call can be located many stack frames down from
> parent job. In this case continuations are unusable.
>
> More convenient approach is to map separate jobs to separate thread pools.
> This technique is successfully employed in Hazelcast. You just define
> additional executors and say that job A is to be executed one thread pool,
> and job B on another.
>
> The same technique is applicable for services:
>
> class MyService implements Service {
> @IgniteInstanceResource
> Ignite ignite;
>
> void myMethod() {
>
> ignite.service().withExecutor("myExecutor").service("
> myService").nestedCall();
> }
> }
>
> All in all I would do the following:
> 1) Create separate built-in pool for services to make sure that in simple
> cases users are able to call compute jobs from service methods.
> 2) Implement custom executors which will be applicable for both compute [1]
> and service components.
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4699
>
> 08 марта 2017 г. 23:01 пользователь "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <
> dsetrak...@apache.org> написал:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Separate thread pool will not solve the case of calling a service from
> > > another service.
> > >
> >
> > Why not? The caller thread should block.
> >
>
