ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sergi Vladykin <sergi.vlady...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: .Net: separate methods for async operations.
Date Mon, 12 Oct 2015 17:38:53 GMT
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 <dsetrakyan@apache.org>:

> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <vozerov@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.vladykin@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 <dsetrakyan@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 <
> vozerov@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 <
> yzhdanov@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 <vozerov@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 <
> > > > > > dsetrakyan@apache.org
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 3:42 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <
> > > > > vozerov@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?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message