> And if you're staying in the same process, using asynchronism without being > parallel makes no sense: since you're only running one thread, there is > really no point in making asynchronous calls within your code.
Of course there isn't, the only difference would be between returning a result to the underlying stack frame vs. calling a method on it. My point is that asynchronism facilitates parallelization, regardless of whether this is implemented by green threads, single-core time-slicing or full blown concurrent execution on multiple cores. Perhaps I'm tainted by having played with the "async" and "await" abstractions in C# 5.0 (which they pretty much lifted from F#). Interestingly enough, the logical control flow model is still synchronous, but the physical one is not. It means developers can declare their intentions at the method level but let the compiler/ runtime setup/spin-up the appropriate number of threads and handle blocking, work-stealing etc. automatically. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
