Well, if we asume that the most common usage will be
IgniteCache.async().doSomething(), then yes - backwards transformation is
not necessary.
All in all this approach seems to be the most clean among other suggested.
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Sergi Vladykin <sergi.vlady...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Dmitriy,
>
> I mostly agree with your points except naming and hierarchy:
>
> 1. I don't like CacheAsync, it is ugly.
>
> 2. If IgniteCache extends AsyncCache then we can't use the same names for
> methods, we will be forced to use *blaAsync(...)* format
> which is ugly for me as well. Also this will pollute sync API with async
> one, while we are trying to avoid that.
>
> Sergi
>
> 2015-10-12 20:28 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > > The problem with this approach is that not all methods are async. E.g.
> > > name(), lock(K), iterator(), etc.. So you should either mix sync and
> > async
> > > methods in AsyncCache still, or expose only async methods.
> >
> >
> > I think AsyncCache, or rather CacheAsync, should expose only async
> methods.
> > Moreover, should IgniteCache simply extend CacheAsync API?
> >
> >
> > > In the latter case we will require backwards
> > > transformation: IgniteCache AsyncCache.sync().
> > >
> >
> > Not sure this is needed.
> >
> >
> > > Consistency between platforms should have minimal priority. .Net and
> Java
> > > are very different. For example we cannot even have "V Get(K)" method
> in
> > > .Net cache. Instead we have "V TryGet(K, out bool)" because .Net
> supports
> > > structs and have full generics support and naive Java approach simply
> > > doesn't work here. Base concepts must be the same across platforms, but
> > > methods signatures and grouping will be different.
> > >
> >
> > I disagree here. I think consistency matters. Moreover, based on the
> > previous .NET examples you have provided, I do not see much difference
> > between .NET and Java, other than different syntax. I think the same
> > CacheAsync design can be applied to both.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 7:53 PM, Sergi Vladykin <
> > sergi.vlady...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > In my view we should not pollute sync APIs with all async methods,
> > > > definitely we have to separate them
> > > > for better UX.
> > > >
> > > > Currently on Java we have IgniteAsyncSupport with method withAsync()
> > > which
> > > > returns the same sync API
> > > > but that API works in broken manner. Instead it should look like the
> > > > following IMO
> > > >
> > > > interface AsyncSupport<X> {
> > > > X async();
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > Where X will be an interface with respective async API. For example
> > for
> > > > IngneCache we will have AsyncCache
> > > > with all the respective async variants of all methods. Like this
> > > >
> > > > interface IgniteCache<K,V> extends AsyncSupport<AsyncCache<K,V>> {
> > > > V get(K key);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > interface AsyncCache<K,V> {
> > > > IgniteFuture<V> get(K key);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > From implementation standpoint both interfaces can be implemented by
> > the
> > > > same class but for user API
> > > > they will be conveniently separated. Implementation of every sync
> > method
> > > is
> > > > trivial if we have
> > > > async counterpart: just call get() on received future.
> > > >
> > > > From documentation point of view we just have to write on each method
> > > that
> > > > it is a async variant of some
> > > > method on main API like following:
> > > >
> > > > /**
> > > > * Asynchronous variant of method {@link
> IgniteCache#get(Object)}.
> > > > */
> > > >
> > > > This way we will not need to maintain the same docs for all sync and
> > > async
> > > > methods.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, I'm not an expert in .Net but I believe this approach will fit
> > > .Net
> > > > as well, so it can be consistent across platforms.
> > > >
> > > > Sergi
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2015-10-12 19:10 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org
> >:
> > > >
> > > > > Do I understand correctly that you are suggesting adding
> "Async(..)"
> > > > > counterparts for all the synchronous methods?
> > > > >
> > > > > Are there any objections about this? If we do it in .NET, then we
> > might
> > > > as
> > > > > well do it in Java, because in my view the same reasoning can be
> made
> > > for
> > > > > Java. This will cause significant proliferation of Async methods.
> For
> > > > > example just on IgniteCache API, we will have to add about 40
> Async()
> > > > > methods.
> > > > >
> > > > > D.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 3:45 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > voze...@gridgain.com
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > No. "await" is actually return from the method immediately. Let
> me
> > > show
> > > > > it
> > > > > > again:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > async Task<int> GetAndMultiply() {
> > > > > > Task<int> res = cache.GetAsync(1);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > await res;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > return res.Result * res.Result;
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > maps to the following pseudo-code in Java:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Future<Integer> getAndMultiply() {
> > > > > > Future<Integer> res = cache.getAsync(1);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > return res.chain((f) => {
> > > > > > return f.get() * f.get();
> > > > > > });
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <
> > yzhda...@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is current thread blocked until "await" instruction is
> completed
> > in
> > > > > > > parallel thread?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --Yakov
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2015-10-12 10:41 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <
> voze...@gridgain.com
> > >:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Example with Get() operation:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > async Task<int> GetAndMultiply() {
> > > > > > > > // This line is executed in current thread.
> > > > > > > > Task<int> res = cache.GetAsync(1);
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > await res;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > // This code is executed in another thread when res is
> > ready.
> > > > > > > > int mul = res.Result * res.Result;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > return mul;
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > > > > > dsetrak...@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 3:42 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > > voze...@gridgain.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Guys, let's try keeping this topic focused on .Net
> please,
> > > > > because
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > product is not released yet and we can create any API we
> > > like.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Dima, answering your question about async/await - this is
> > > > > actually
> > > > > > > > native
> > > > > > > > > > continuation support in .Net. Consider the following .Net
> > > > method:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > async void PutAndPrint() {
> > > > > > > > > > await cache.PutAsync(1, 1);
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Console.WriteLine("Put value to cache.");
> > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And what if the method putAsync would return a value. How
> > would
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > > > change?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
