Hello Pavel,
I took a look at your IEP and pool request. I have the following concerns.
First of all, this change breaks the contract of IgniteFuture#listen(lsnr)
/**
* Registers listener closure to be asynchronously notified whenever
future completes.
* Closure will be processed in thread that completes this future or
(if future already
* completed) immediately in current thread.
*
* @param lsnr Listener closure to register. Cannot be {@code null}.
*/
public void listen(IgniteInClosure<? super IgniteFuture<V>> lsnr);
In your pull request, the listener is always called from a specified
thread pool (which is fork-join by default)
even though the future is already completed at the moment the listen
method is called.
In my opinion, this can lead to significant overhead - submission
requires acquiring a lock and notifying a pool thread.
It seems to me, that we should not change the current behavior.
However, thread pool executor can be added as an optional parameter of
listen() method as follows:
public void listen(IgniteInClosure<? super IgniteFuture<V>> lsnr,
Executor exec);
Thanks,
S.
пн, 15 мар. 2021 г. в 19:24, Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@apache.org>:
> Igniters,
>
> Please review the IEP [1] and let me know your thoughts.
>
> [1]
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/IEP-70%3A+Async+Continuation+Executor
>
