Val, no objections from my side. As noted above, the only benefit of IgniteFuture is consistency across thin/thick APIs, which is probably not so important.
On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 6:28 PM Valentin Kulichenko < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Pavel, > > Are there any benefits of IgniteFuture over CompletableFuture? > > IgniteFuture was created long ago, during the time when CompletableFuture > did not exist. There is a big chance that IgniteFuture actually became > redundant at the moment we transitioned to Java8. If that's the case, I > would prefer using CompletableFuture in the thin client and getting rid of > IgniteFuture altogether in 3.0. > > What do you think? > > -Val > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 7:19 AM Pavel Tupitsyn <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Igniters, > > > > I've prepared an IEP [1], please review and let me know what you think. > > > > In particular, I'd like to discuss the Future interface to be used: > > * IgniteFuture is the first candidate - Thin APIs will be consistent with > > Thick APIs, probably better for existing Ignite users. > > * CompletableFuture is the standard for async Java APIs. Many users may > > prefer that instead of a custom IgniteFuture. > > > > [1] > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-51%3A+Java+Thin+Client+Async+API > > >
