On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Sergey Evdokimov <[email protected]> wrote:
> Guys, > > IMHO Name of method IgniteAsyncSupport.enableAsync() is unclear, because > calling of "cache.enableAsync()" does not ENABLE async mode on the 'cache' > instance, it returns another instance with async mode enabled. May be > enableAsync() should be renamed to something like 'withAsync()'? > I agree. It is more consistent with other withXXX() methods. Sergey E., feel free to rename it (I would also create a ticket for it). > > Also I think that it would be good to support code like this: > > cache.withAsync().put(key, value); > Future fut = cache.future(); > Disagree. I think the above is confusing. It is also not consistent with other withXXX() methods. > > looks, in that code we must not call cache.withAsync() in second like, > future can be obtain from 'cache' instance. Now that code > throws IllegalStateException on "cache.future()" because 'cache' in not in > async mode. >
