[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-3510?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15090990#comment-15090990
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on THRIFT-3510:
----------------------------------------
Github user adam-resdiary commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/thrift/pull/762#issuecomment-170336556
@Jens-G @nsuke That's the changes added to get rid of the separateasync
flag and just use the async flag instead.
One thing I noticed is we've got #if preprocessor directives that only
include the Begin_, End_ methods if you're building for Silverlight. However,
these directives aren't included if you generate with ```async:true```, but
they do if you generate with ```asyncctp:true```. This means the Begin_, End_
methods are always included for async, but only included for asyncctp if you're
building for Silverlight.
I didn't want to change this behaviour since it's how the code currently
is, but it seems a bit inconsistent.
> Add HttpTaskAsyncHandler implementation
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Key: THRIFT-3510
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-3510
> Project: Thrift
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: C# - Compiler, C# - Library
> Reporter: Adam Connelly
> Priority: Minor
>
> The THttpHandler doesn't support an async pipeline. This means that it's
> difficult for service implementations to make async calls. If there was an
> implementation of HttpTaskAsyncHandler, you could write services using async
> calls.
> Additionally, if you generate the C# classes with the current async support,
> you get a single interface with both sync and async methods. This doesn't
> really make sense on the server side since if you implement a service you end
> up leaving all the async method unimplemented. It would be useful if there
> were separate sync and async interfaces to make this a bit tidier.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
